public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Gautham R Shenoy <ego@in.ibm.com>
To: Satoru Takeuchi <takeuchi_satoru@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@in.ibm.com>,
	Zwane Mwaikambo <zwane@arm.linux.org.uk>,
	Nathan Lynch <nathanl@austin.ibm.com>,
	Joel Schopp <jschopp@austin.ibm.com>,
	Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com>,
	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [BUG] cpu-hotplug: Can't offline the CPU with naughty realtime processes
Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 16:17:24 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20070507104724.GA10624@in.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87bqgxrlky.wl%takeuchi_satoru@jp.fujitsu.com>

Hi Satoru,

On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 07:10:05PM +0900, Satoru Takeuchi wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I found a bug on 2.6.21 cpu-hotplug code.

IIRC, __stop_machine_run is used by subsystems other than cpu-hotplug. 
So we're not the only ones bugged.

> 
> When process A on CPU0 try to offline the CPU1 on which the process B,
> realtime process (its task->policy == SCHED_FIFO or SCHED_RR) running
> without sleep or yield, both CPU0 and CPU1 get hang. It's because of
> the following code on __stop_machine_run().
> 
> struct task_struct *__stop_machine_run(int (*fn)(void *), void *data,
> 				       unsigned int cpu)
> {
> 	...
> 	p = kthread_create(do_stop, &smdata, "kstopmachine");
> 	if (!IS_ERR(p)) {
> 		kthread_bind(p, cpu);
> 		wake_up_process(p);
> 		wait_for_completion(&smdata.done);
> 	}
> 	...
> }
> 
> kstopmachine is created, bound to the CPU1, and woken up here, but
> this process can't start to run because reschedule doesn't occur on
> CPU1. Hence CPU0 also be able to run because it's waiting completion
> of CPU1's offline work.


But each of these stop_machine_run threads run at MAX_RT_PRIO - 1 
with SCHED_FIFO. So unless B is also running at MAX_RT_PRIO - 1,
there should not be a hang. Moreover, I doubt if we have kernel threads(B)
which runs at MAX_RT_PRIO - 1.

Nevertheless, with the freezer based approach that we're experimenting,
this problem shouldn't arise. We expect the whole system to get frozen
before we actually do a cpu_down() (which will then call
__stop_machine_run). So any such rogue RT task will have to first fail
the freezer ( which it will), but that's ok, since on a freezer-fail,
we just thaw all the processes and get the system up and running again.
Yeah, the cpu-hotplug operation will fail though.


> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Sat

Regards
gautham.
-- 
Gautham R Shenoy
Linux Technology Center
IBM India.
"Freedom comes with a price tag of responsibility, which is still a bargain,
because Freedom is priceless!"

  reply	other threads:[~2007-05-07 10:47 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-05-07 10:10 [BUG] cpu-hotplug: Can't offline the CPU with naughty realtime processes Satoru Takeuchi
2007-05-07 10:47 ` Gautham R Shenoy [this message]
2007-05-07 11:02   ` Srivatsa Vaddagiri
2007-05-07 12:39     ` Gautham R Shenoy
2007-05-07 10:55 ` Srivatsa Vaddagiri
2007-05-07 10:56 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2007-05-07 13:42 ` Rusty Russell
2007-05-08  2:41   ` Satoru Takeuchi
2007-05-08  3:02     ` Rusty Russell
2007-05-08  3:29       ` Satoru Takeuchi
2007-05-08  4:04         ` Rusty Russell
2007-05-08  4:10         ` Srivatsa Vaddagiri
2007-05-08  7:16           ` Satoru Takeuchi
2007-05-08 16:48             ` Srivatsa Vaddagiri
2007-05-09  0:40               ` Satoru Takeuchi
2007-05-09  0:47                 ` Nick Piggin
2007-05-09  6:31                   ` Satoru Takeuchi
2007-05-09  8:56                   ` Gautham R Shenoy
2007-05-11  8:49       ` [PATCH 1/2] Fix stop_machine_run problem with naughty real time process Satoru Takeuchi
2007-05-11  9:18         ` Satoru Takeuchi
2007-05-11  8:49       ` [PATCH 2/2] cpu hotplug: fix ksoftirqd termination on cpu hotplug with naughty realtime process Satoru Takeuchi

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20070507104724.GA10624@in.ibm.com \
    --to=ego@in.ibm.com \
    --cc=ashok.raj@intel.com \
    --cc=heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com \
    --cc=jschopp@austin.ibm.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=nathanl@austin.ibm.com \
    --cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
    --cc=takeuchi_satoru@jp.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=vatsa@in.ibm.com \
    --cc=zwane@arm.linux.org.uk \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox