Re: Threaded irqs + 100% CPU RT task = RCU stall

Paul E. McKenney
2013-03-13T21:28:02Z

On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 05:03:07PM -0400, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> [Re: Threaded irqs + 100% CPU RT task = RCU stall] On 06/03/2013 (Wed 13:45) Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >
> > Is this behavior OK? If so, the following (untested) patch might do
> > what you want. ;-)
> >
> > Thanx, Paul
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > rcu: Add softirq-stall indications to stall-warning messages
>
> [...]
>
> >
> > +The "softirq=" portion of the message tracks the number of RCU softirq
> > +handlers that the stalled CPU has executed. The number before the "/"
> > +is the number that had executed since boot at the time that this CPU
> > +last noted the beginning of a grace period, which might be the current
> > +(stalled) grace period, or it might be some earlier grace period (for
> > +example, if the CPU might have been in dyntick-idle mode for an extended
> > +time period. The number after the "/" is the number that have executed
> > +since boot until the current time. If this latter number stays constant
> > +across repeated stall-warning messages, it is possible that RCU's softirq
> > +handlers are no longer able to execute on this CPU. This can happen if
> > +the stalled CPU is spinning with interrupts are disabled, or, in -rt
> > +kernels, if a high-priority process is starving RCU's softirq handler.
>
> Here is the output of two consecutive stalls (triggered exactly as I'd
> described before) after applying the commit and enabling the new config
> option for RCU_CPU_STALL_INFO (btw, do we need this? we already have
> the RCU_CPU_STALL_VERBOSE option, and the distinction isn't clear.)
>
> Looking at the output, it doesn't necessarily scream out "you are an
> idiot" in a way that Joe Average can immediately parse and understand,
> but I guess it does at least arm us with more information so that we
> can tell Joe Average that he is an idiot (assuming he posts more than
> just a single stall instance).

OK, will queue this patch for 3.10, then, with your Tested-by.

> Also note right after the <EOI> below, it looks like two stall
> messages got interleavedi, or a carriage return got dropped...
> (not suggesting that this patch caused that.).

No idea... Will recheck synchronization. Oh, wait... The stall warnings
for self-detected stalls are not synchronized. This is a tradeoff.
If I synchronize them, and there are multiple CPUs stalling concurrently
and self-detecting those stalls, then I randomly lose stalls from some
of the CPUs. I could let the winner complain on behalf of all currently
stalled CPUs, but remote stack tracing is inaccurate.

My thought is to leave it, unless someone has a cute idea for making it
all work nicely.

Thanx, Paul

> Paul.
> --
>
> INFO: rcu_preempt self-detected stall on CPU
> INFO: rcu_preempt detected stalls on CPUs/tasks:
> 1: (1 GPs behind) idle=f4f/140000000000001/0 softirq=2256/2257
> (detected by 5, t=60002 jiffies, g=324, c=323, q=1368)
> Task dump for CPU 1:
> eatme-simple R running task 0 1487 1433 0x00000000
> ffff88042ef47f60 ffffffff81316de1 ffff88042e5f5810 ffff88042ef47fd8
> 0000000000010c00 ffff88042ef47fd8 ffff88042f994210 ffff88042e5f5810
> 0000000000000000 ffff88043f4fe980 ffffffff810a56e4 0000000000000203
> Call Trace:
> [<ffffffff81316de1>] ? __schedule+0x62a/0x75e
> [<ffffffff810a56e4>] ? dput+0x20/0x15c
> [<ffffffff81096070>] ? __fput+0x1a1/0x1c8
> [<ffffffff810ab833>] ? mntput_no_expire+0x13/0x11f
> [<ffffffff8101c55c>] ? do_page_fault+0x1f/0x3b
>
> 1: (1 GPs behind) idle=f4f/140000000000001/0 softirq=2256/2257
> (t=60082 jiffies g=324 c=323 q=1368)
> Pid: 1487, comm: eatme-simple Not tainted 3.9.0-rc2+ #2
> Call Trace:
> <IRQ> [<ffffffff8105cac6>] ? rcu_check_callbacks+0x215/0x61a
> [<ffffffff8102cffc>] ? update_process_times+0x31/0x5c
> [<ffffffff8104bb5b>] ? tick_handle_periodic+0x18/0x52
> [<ffffffff81016328>] ? smp_apic_timer_interrupt+0x7d/0x8f
> [<ffffffff8131944a>] ? apic_timer_interrupt+0x6a/0x70
> <EOI>
> INFO: rcu_preempt self-detected stall on CPUINFO: rcu_preempt detected stalls on CPUs/tasks:
> 1: (1 GPs behind) idle=f4f/140000000000001/0 softirq=2256/2257
> (detected by 5, t=240007 jiffies, g=324, c=323, q=9386)
> Task dump for CPU 1:
> eatme-simple R running task 0 1487 1433 0x00000000
> ffff88042ef47f60 ffffffff81316dfd ffff88042e5f5810 ffff88042ef47fd8
> 0000000000010c00 ffff88042ef47fd8 ffff88042e5f5810 ffff88042e5f5810
> 0000000000000000 ffff88043f4fe980 ffffffff810a56e4 0000000000000203
> Call Trace:
> [<ffffffff81316dfd>] ? __schedule+0x646/0x75e
> [<ffffffff810a56e4>] ? dput+0x20/0x15c
> [<ffffffff81096070>] ? __fput+0x1a1/0x1c8
> [<ffffffff810ab833>] ? mntput_no_expire+0x13/0x11f
> [<ffffffff8101c55c>] ? do_page_fault+0x1f/0x3b
>
> 1: (1 GPs behind) idle=f4f/140000000000001/0 softirq=2256/2257
> (t=240087 jiffies g=324 c=323 q=9386)
> Pid: 1487, comm: eatme-simple Not tainted 3.9.0-rc2+ #2
> Call Trace:
> <IRQ> [<ffffffff8105cac6>] ? rcu_check_callbacks+0x215/0x61a
> [<ffffffff8102cffc>] ? update_process_times+0x31/0x5c
> [<ffffffff8104bb5b>] ? tick_handle_periodic+0x18/0x52
> [<ffffffff81016328>] ? smp_apic_timer_interrupt+0x7d/0x8f
> [<ffffffff8131944a>] ? apic_timer_interrupt+0x6a/0x70
>