From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for April 14 (Call-traces: RCU/ACPI/WQ related?) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 05:42:56 -0700 Message-ID: <20110426124256.GI4308@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20110423210539.GI2628@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20110424062728.GM2628@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20110424164331.GN2628@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20110426050612.GA7651@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from e8.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.138]:53867 "EHLO e8.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751568Ab1DZMnA (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Apr 2011 08:43:00 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: sedat.dilek@gmail.com Cc: Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, LKML , peterz@infradead.org On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 01:45:31PM +0200, Sedat Dilek wrote: > On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 7:06 AM, Paul E. McKenney > wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 09:43:31AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > >> On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 11:36:44AM +0200, Sedat Dilek wrote: > >> > On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 8:27 AM, Paul E. McKenney > >> > wrote: > >> > >> [ . . . ] > >> > >> > > OK, this looks unrelated, but just in case, could you please t= ry it > >> > > again with the following patch? =A0(Not mainlinable, debug onl= y.) > >> > > > >> > > Also, it does look like you are still seeing a grace-period ha= ng. > >> > > Could you please send the output of the script? =A0Same one as= last time. > >> > > > >> > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0= =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Thanx, Paul > >> > > > >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------= ---------- > >> > > > >> > > =A0debugobjects.c | =A0 =A08 +++++--- > >> > > =A01 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > >> > > > >> > > diff --git a/lib/debugobjects.c b/lib/debugobjects.c > >> > > index 9d86e45..10a7c7a 100644 > >> > > --- a/lib/debugobjects.c > >> > > +++ b/lib/debugobjects.c > >> > > @@ -289,10 +289,12 @@ static void debug_object_is_on_stack(voi= d *addr, int onstack) > >> > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0return; > >> > > > >> > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0limit++; > >> > > - =A0 =A0 =A0 if (is_on_stack) > >> > > + =A0 =A0 =A0 if (is_on_stack) { > >> > > + =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 struct rcu_head *p =3D (struct r= cu_head *)addr; > >> > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0printk(KERN_WARNING > >> > > - =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0"ODEBUG: object i= s on stack, but not annotated\n"); > >> > > - =A0 =A0 =A0 else > >> > > + =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0"ODEBUG: object i= s on stack, but not annotated: %p\n", > >> > > + =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0p->func); > >> > > + =A0 =A0 =A0 } else > >> > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0printk(KERN_WARNING > >> > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 "ODEBUG: object is= not on stack, but annotated\n"); > >> > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0WARN_ON(1); > >> > > > >> > > >> > Somehow your attached patch was not applicable. > >> > As the changes were a few lines I applied it by myself. > >> > Attached are log, dmesg and patches (orig + mine) > >> > >> Hmmm... =A0Does 0xc10231a1 correspond to a function in your build?= =A0If so, > >> could you please let me know which one? > >> > >> OK, so according to "ps" the per-CPU kthread is runnable, but it a= ppears > >> to never run. =A0You only have one CPU, so it cannot be waiting du= e to > >> running on the wrong CPU. =A0The only other loop is in wait_event(= ), and > >> that code looks good -- besides, if wait_event() was broken, we wo= uld > >> be seeing breakage everywhere. > >> > >> Peter, any thoughts on what I might have done wrong to get the sch= eduler > >> into a state where it was ignoring a runnable realtime task? > > > > Hello, Sedat, > > > > Here is a diagnostic patch to apply on top of sedat.2011.04.23a fro= m > > the -rcu git tree. =A0Could you please try it out, let me know what > > happens, and run the last collectdebugfs.sh during the test? > > > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0= =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Thanx, Paul > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- > > > > diff --git a/kernel/rcutree.c b/kernel/rcutree.c > > index 6cf6e47..65ae701 100644 > > --- a/kernel/rcutree.c > > +++ b/kernel/rcutree.c > > @@ -1524,9 +1524,9 @@ static void rcu_cpu_kthread_setrt(int cpu, in= t to_rt) > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0return; > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0if (to_rt) { > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0policy =3D SCHED_NORMAL; > > - =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 sp.sched_priority =3D RCU_KTHREAD_PRI= O; > > + =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 sp.sched_priority =3D 0; > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0} else { > > - =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 policy =3D SCHED_FIFO; > > + =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 policy =3D SCHED_NORMAL; > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0sp.sched_priority =3D 0; > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0} > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0sched_setscheduler_nocheck(t, policy, &sp); > > @@ -1566,8 +1566,8 @@ static void rcu_yield(void (*f)(unsigned long= ), unsigned long arg) > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0sp.sched_priority =3D 0; > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0sched_setscheduler_nocheck(current, SCHED_NORMAL, &s= p); > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0schedule(); > > - =A0 =A0 =A0 sp.sched_priority =3D RCU_KTHREAD_PRIO; > > - =A0 =A0 =A0 sched_setscheduler_nocheck(current, SCHED_FIFO, &sp); > > + =A0 =A0 =A0 sp.sched_priority =3D 0; > > + =A0 =A0 =A0 sched_setscheduler_nocheck(current, SCHED_NORMAL, &sp= ); > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0del_timer(&yield_timer); > > =A0} > > > > @@ -1671,8 +1671,8 @@ static int __cpuinit rcu_spawn_one_cpu_kthrea= d(int cpu) > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0WARN_ON_ONCE(per_cpu(rcu_cpu_kthread_task, cpu) !=3D= NULL); > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0per_cpu(rcu_cpu_kthread_task, cpu) =3D t; > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0wake_up_process(t); > > - =A0 =A0 =A0 sp.sched_priority =3D RCU_KTHREAD_PRIO; > > - =A0 =A0 =A0 sched_setscheduler_nocheck(t, SCHED_FIFO, &sp); > > + =A0 =A0 =A0 sp.sched_priority =3D 0; > > + =A0 =A0 =A0 sched_setscheduler_nocheck(t, SCHED_NORMAL, &sp); > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0return 0; > > =A0} > > > > @@ -1713,8 +1713,8 @@ static int rcu_node_kthread(void *arg) > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0cont= inue; > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0} > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0per_cpu(rcu_cpu_has_= work, cpu) =3D 1; > > - =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 sp.sched_priority =3D= RCU_KTHREAD_PRIO; > > - =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 sched_setscheduler_no= check(t, SCHED_FIFO, &sp); > > + =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 sp.sched_priority =3D= 0; > > + =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 sched_setscheduler_no= check(t, SCHED_NORMAL, &sp); > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0preempt_enable(); > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0} > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0} > > diff --git a/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h > > index a21413d..baee185 100644 > > --- a/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h > > +++ b/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h > > @@ -1307,8 +1307,8 @@ static int __cpuinit rcu_spawn_one_boost_kthr= ead(struct rcu_state *rsp, > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0rnp->boost_kthread_task =3D t; > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rnp->lock, flags); > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0wake_up_process(t); > > - =A0 =A0 =A0 sp.sched_priority =3D RCU_KTHREAD_PRIO; > > - =A0 =A0 =A0 sched_setscheduler_nocheck(t, SCHED_FIFO, &sp); > > + =A0 =A0 =A0 sp.sched_priority =3D 0; > > + =A0 =A0 =A0 sched_setscheduler_nocheck(t, SCHED_NORMAL, &sp); > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0return 0; > > =A0} > > > > >=20 > Hi Paul, >=20 > I have tested with your patch and kept the kernel-config file from > previous tests (don't get confused by the new name). > Hope this helps you. >=20 > I have some questions to k-c options espcially X86_UP and > CONFIG_RCU_FANOUT=3D32 options. > To what extent can they influence our RCU issue? > The below options were not set for this round of testing, but I would > like to have a feedback. > Thanks in advance. >=20 > Would these settings be more optimal for a UP-machine? >=20 > # CONFIG_SMP is not set > # CONFIG_M486 is not set > CONFIG_M686=3Dy > CONFIG_NR_CPUS=3D1 These should be fine. > CONFIG_X86_UP_APIC=3Dy > CONFIG_X86_UP_IOAPIC=3Dy These I don't know about. > CONFIG_HIGHMEM4G=3Dy This one seems good for allowing the system to go as long as possible. > Is CONFIG_RCU_FANOUT=3D32 OK? On a UP system, this one doesn't matter. > With reverting commit 687d7a960aea46e016182c7ce346d62c4dbd0366 ("rcu: > restrict TREE_RCU to SMP builds with !PREEMPT"). Thank you for trying this one out! I don't see any sign of a grace-period hang. Did your test complete correctly? Thanx, Paul