Re: RCU lockup issues when CONFIG_SOFTLOCKUP_DETECTOR=n - any one else seeing this?

["Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 12:08:47PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 12:03:50 -0700
> "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 06:27:05PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > > On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 09:55:29 -0700
> > > "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > >   
> > > > On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 02:24:03PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:  
> > > > > On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 08:44:11 +0100
> > > > > Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com> wrote:    
> > > > 
> > > > [ . . . ]
> > > >   
> > > > > Ok.  Some info.  I disabled a few driver (usb and SAS) in the interest of having
> > > > > fewer timer events.  Issue became much easier to trigger (on some runs before
> > > > > I could get tracing up and running)
> > > > >e
> > > > > So logs are large enough that pastebin doesn't like them - please shoet if    
> > > > >>e another timer period is of interest.    
> > > > > 
> > > > > https://pastebin.com/iUZDfQGM for the timer trace.
> > > > > https://pastebin.com/3w1F7amH for dmesg.  
> > > > > 
> > > > > The relevant timeout on the RCU stall detector was 8 seconds.  Event is
> > > > > detected around 835.
> > > > > 
> > > > > It's a lot of logs, so I haven't identified a smoking gun yet but there
> > > > > may well be one in there.    
> > > > 
> > > > The dmesg says:
> > > > 
> > > > rcu_preempt kthread starved for 2508 jiffies! g112 c111 f0x0 RCU_GP_WAIT_FQS(3) ->state=0x1
> > > > 
> > > > So I look for "rcu_preempt" timer events and find these:
> > > > 
> > > > rcu_preempt-9     [019] ....   827.579114: timer_init: timer=ffff8017d5fc7da0
> > > > rcu_preempt-9     [019] d..1   827.579115: timer_start: timer=ffff8017d5fc7da0 function=process_timeout 
> > > > 
> > > > Next look for "ffff8017d5fc7da0" and I don't find anything else.  
> > > It does show up off the bottom of what would fit in pastebin...
> > > 
> > >      rcu_preempt-9     [001] d..1   837.681077: timer_cancel: timer=ffff8017d5fc7da0
> > >      rcu_preempt-9     [001] ....   837.681086: timer_init: timer=ffff8017d5fc7da0
> > >      rcu_preempt-9     [001] d..1   837.681087: timer_start: timer=ffff8017d5fc7da0 function=process_timeout expires=4295101298 [timeout=1] cpu=1 idx=0 flags=  
> > 
> > Odd.  I would expect an expiration...  And ten seconds is way longer
> > than the requested one jiffy!
> > 
> > > > The timeout was one jiffy, and more than a second later, no expiration.
> > > > Is it possible that this event was lost?  I am not seeing any sign of
> > > > this is the trace.
> > > > 
> > > > I don't see any sign of CPU hotplug (and I test with lots of that in
> > > > any case).
> > > > 
> > > > The last time we saw something like this it was a timer HW/driver problem,
> > > > but it is a bit hard to imagine such a problem affecting both ARM64
> > > > and SPARC.  ;-)  
> > > Could be different issues, both of which were hidden by that lockup detector.
> > > 
> > > There is an errata work around for the timers on this particular board.
> > > I'm only vaguely aware of it, so may be unconnected.
> > > 
> > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c?h=v4.13-rc2&id=bb42ca47401010fc02901b5e8f79e40a26f208cb
> > > 
> > > Seems unlikely though! + we've not yet seen it on the other chips that
> > > errata effects (not that that means much).  
> > 
> > If you can reproduce quickly, might be worth trying anyway...
> > 
> > 							Thanx, Paul
> Errata fix is running already and was for all those tests.

I was afraid of that...  ;-)

> I'll have a dig into the timers today and see where I get to.

Look forward to seeing what you find!

							Thanx, Paul

> Jonathan
> > 
> > > Jonathan
> > >   
> > > > 
> > > > Thomas, any debugging suggestions?
> > > > 
> > > > 							Thanx, Paul
> > > >   
> > >   
> > 
>