From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Julie Sullivan <kernelmail.jms@gmail.com>
Cc: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>,
xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
chengxu@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: PROBLEM: 3.0-rc kernels unbootable since -rc3
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 14:07:59 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110712210759.GP2326@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAAVPGOP_n1nR_Bauo67dDAAtUPPxU4WmrVrH-+8u_FdcN6EjjQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 10:04:48PM +0100, Julie Sullivan wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 9:46 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 03:57:32PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 09:10:36PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >> > On Tue, 2011-07-12 at 11:59 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >> > > OK, so the infinite loop in task_waking_fair() happens even if RCU callbacks
> >> > > are deferred until after the scheduler is fully initialized. Sounds like
> >> > > one for the scheduler guys. ;-)
> >> >
> >> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/7/12/150
> >>
> >> Such a simple patch. And yes, it fixes the issue. You can add
> >> Tested-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com> if it hasn't yet
> >> showed up in Ingo's tree.
> >>
> >> Paul, thanks for help on this and providing ideas to test!
> >
> > Konrad, thank you for all the testing!
> >
> > Julie, if you apply Peter's patch,
>
> But this is for 32-bit , right?
Indeed it is, please accept my apologies for my confusion.
> > +#ifndef CONFIG_64BIT
> > + cfs_rq->min_vruntime_copy = cfs_rq->min_vruntime;
> > +#endif
> }
>
> I'm using 64-bit...
>
> Would you still like me to try the below patch?
Could you please? It restores the exact behavior of the patch that
worked for you, but in a form that can go upstream.
So I am very much hoping that it works for you.
Thanx, Paul
> Cheers
> Julie
>
>
> > do you also need the patch shown
> > below?
> >
> > Ravi, could you please retest with the patch below as well?
> >
> > Thanx, Paul
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/rcutree.c b/kernel/rcutree.c
> > index 7e59ffb..ba06207 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcutree.c
> > +++ b/kernel/rcutree.c
> > @@ -84,9 +84,32 @@ DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct rcu_data, rcu_bh_data);
> >
> > static struct rcu_state *rcu_state;
> >
> > +/*
> > + * The rcu_scheduler_active variable transitions from zero to one just
> > + * before the first task is spawned. So when this variable is zero, RCU
> > + * can assume that there is but one task, allowing RCU to (for example)
> > + * optimized synchronize_sched() to a simple barrier(). When this variable
> > + * is one, RCU must actually do all the hard work required to detect real
> > + * grace periods. This variable is also used to suppress boot-time false
> > + * positives from lockdep-RCU error checking.
> > + */
> > int rcu_scheduler_active __read_mostly;
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rcu_scheduler_active);
> >
> > +/*
> > + * The rcu_scheduler_fully_active variable transitions from zero to one
> > + * during the early_initcall() processing, which is after the scheduler
> > + * is capable of creating new tasks. So RCU processing (for example,
> > + * creating tasks for RCU priority boosting) must be delayed until after
> > + * rcu_scheduler_fully_active transitions from zero to one. We also
> > + * currently delay invocation of any RCU callbacks until after this point.
> > + *
> > + * It might later prove better for people registering RCU callbacks during
> > + * early boot to take responsibility for these callbacks, but one step at
> > + * a time.
> > + */
> > +static int rcu_scheduler_fully_active __read_mostly;
> > +
> > #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST
> >
> > /*
> > @@ -98,7 +121,6 @@ DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned int, rcu_cpu_kthread_status);
> > DEFINE_PER_CPU(int, rcu_cpu_kthread_cpu);
> > DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned int, rcu_cpu_kthread_loops);
> > DEFINE_PER_CPU(char, rcu_cpu_has_work);
> > -static char rcu_kthreads_spawnable;
> >
> > #endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST */
> >
> > @@ -1467,6 +1489,8 @@ static void rcu_process_callbacks(struct softirq_action *unused)
> > */
> > static void invoke_rcu_callbacks(struct rcu_state *rsp, struct rcu_data *rdp)
> > {
> > + if (unlikely(!ACCESS_ONCE(rcu_scheduler_fully_active)))
> > + return;
> > if (likely(!rsp->boost)) {
> > rcu_do_batch(rsp, rdp);
> > return;
> > diff --git a/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h
> > index 14dc7dd..75113cb 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h
> > +++ b/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h
> > @@ -1532,7 +1532,7 @@ static int __cpuinit rcu_spawn_one_cpu_kthread(int cpu)
> > struct sched_param sp;
> > struct task_struct *t;
> >
> > - if (!rcu_kthreads_spawnable ||
> > + if (!rcu_scheduler_fully_active ||
> > per_cpu(rcu_cpu_kthread_task, cpu) != NULL)
> > return 0;
> > t = kthread_create(rcu_cpu_kthread, (void *)(long)cpu, "rcuc%d", cpu);
> > @@ -1639,7 +1639,7 @@ static int __cpuinit rcu_spawn_one_node_kthread(struct rcu_state *rsp,
> > struct sched_param sp;
> > struct task_struct *t;
> >
> > - if (!rcu_kthreads_spawnable ||
> > + if (!rcu_scheduler_fully_active ||
> > rnp->qsmaskinit == 0)
> > return 0;
> > if (rnp->node_kthread_task == NULL) {
> > @@ -1665,7 +1665,7 @@ static int __init rcu_spawn_kthreads(void)
> > int cpu;
> > struct rcu_node *rnp;
> >
> > - rcu_kthreads_spawnable = 1;
> > + rcu_scheduler_fully_active = 1;
> > for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
> > per_cpu(rcu_cpu_has_work, cpu) = 0;
> > if (cpu_online(cpu))
> > @@ -1687,7 +1687,7 @@ static void __cpuinit rcu_prepare_kthreads(int cpu)
> > struct rcu_node *rnp = rdp->mynode;
> >
> > /* Fire up the incoming CPU's kthread and leaf rcu_node kthread. */
> > - if (rcu_kthreads_spawnable) {
> > + if (rcu_scheduler_fully_active) {
> > (void)rcu_spawn_one_cpu_kthread(cpu);
> > if (rnp->node_kthread_task == NULL)
> > (void)rcu_spawn_one_node_kthread(rcu_state, rnp);
> > @@ -1726,6 +1726,13 @@ static void rcu_cpu_kthread_setrt(int cpu, int to_rt)
> > {
> > }
> >
> > +static int __init rcu_scheduler_really_started(void)
> > +{
> > + rcu_scheduler_fully_active = 1;
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +early_initcall(rcu_scheduler_really_started);
> > +
> > static void __cpuinit rcu_prepare_kthreads(int cpu)
> > {
> > }
> >
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-07-12 21:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 55+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-07-06 21:10 PROBLEM: 3.0-rc kernels unbootable since -rc3 julie Sullivan
2011-07-06 21:23 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-07 19:31 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-07 19:47 ` julie Sullivan
2011-07-07 19:58 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-07 20:28 ` julie Sullivan
2011-07-07 20:47 ` julie Sullivan
2011-07-08 0:29 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-09 10:09 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-10 0:45 ` julie Sullivan
2011-07-10 3:25 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-10 16:38 ` julie Sullivan
2011-07-10 17:16 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-10 17:35 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-10 20:30 ` julie Sullivan
2011-07-10 21:46 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-10 21:50 ` julie Sullivan
2011-07-10 23:14 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-11 16:24 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2011-07-11 17:13 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-11 19:30 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2011-07-11 20:15 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-11 21:09 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2011-07-12 10:55 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-12 14:12 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2011-07-12 14:49 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-12 15:07 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-12 15:15 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-12 15:22 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-12 16:32 ` PROBLEM: 3.0-rc kernels unbootable since -rc3 - under Xen, 32-bit guest only Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2011-07-12 16:46 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-12 16:03 ` PROBLEM: 3.0-rc kernels unbootable since -rc3 Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2011-07-12 16:39 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-12 18:01 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2011-07-12 18:59 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-12 19:07 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2011-07-12 20:52 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-12 19:10 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-07-12 19:57 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2011-07-12 20:46 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-12 21:04 ` Julie Sullivan
2011-07-12 21:07 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2011-07-12 20:05 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-12 6:33 ` [Xen-devel] " Sander Eikelenboom
2011-07-12 14:05 ` Paul E. McKenney
[not found] ` <CAAVPGOMSprJSkzziH6hJv9PweOONzsMaRZEK2ZSrV3xFBReTPw@mail.gmail.com>
[not found] ` <20110711214301.GP2245@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
2011-07-12 21:15 ` Julie Sullivan
2011-07-12 21:29 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-12 21:35 ` Julie Sullivan
2011-07-12 21:49 ` Julie Sullivan
2011-07-12 22:00 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-13 7:18 ` RKK
2011-07-13 15:47 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-13 20:57 ` Julie Sullivan
2011-07-13 21:23 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-07 17:28 ` julie Sullivan
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=20110712210759.GP2326@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=chengxu@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=jeremy@goop.org \
--cc=kernelmail.jms@gmail.com \
--cc=konrad.wilk@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xensource.com \
/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