linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Zhang Zhen <zhenzhang.zhang@huawei.com>
Cc: Don Zickus <dzickus@redhat.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, morgan.wang@huawei.com,
	josh@freedesktop.org, dipankar@in.ibm.com
Subject: Re: RCU CPU stall console spews  leads to soft lockup disabled is reasonable ?
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 21:15:29 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150122051529.GL9719@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <54C0699B.6010801@huawei.com>

On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 11:08:11AM +0800, Zhang Zhen wrote:
> On 2015/1/22 4:06, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 10:10:51AM -0500, Don Zickus wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 10:26:27AM +0800, Zhang Zhen wrote:
> >>>> This may not cause other problems but what happens if you comment out the
> >>>> 'touch_softlockup_watchdog' from the touch_nmi_watchdog function like
> >>>> below (based on latest upstream cb59670870)?
> >>>>
> >>>> The idea is that console printing for that cpu won't reset the softlockup
> >>>> detector.  Again other bad things might happen and this patch may not be a
> >>>> good final solution, but it can help give me a clue about what is going
> >>>> on.
> >>>
> >>> I commented out the 'touch_softlockup_watchdog' from the touch_nmi_watchdog function
> >>> (based on latest upstream ec6f34e5b552).
> >>> This triggered RCU stall and softlockup, but softlockup just printk only once.
> >>
> >> Yes, as expected.  Instead of flooding the console with the same message,
> >> report only once until the high priority task is re-kicked and can re-arm
> >> the softlockup timer again.  So this makes sense.  Based on your double
> >> spin lock test, I don't ever expect this to get re-armed, so you should
> >> not expect to see another message.
> >>
> >>
> >>> As you mentioned "other bad things" lead to softlockup just printk only once.
> >>> What's the bad thing ?
> >>
> >> Well, one of the assumptions here is that if you are going to have
> >> interrupts disabled for a long time and purposely kick the hardlockup
> >> detector (with touch_nmi_watchdog), then you can reasonably assume that
> >> softlockups will go off too if you don't also kick the softlockup detector
> >> (even though there is a window where this isn't true: 2*thresh - thresh).
> >>
> >>
> >> So the patch I gave you, can lead to false softlockup warnings.
> >>
> >>
> >> On the flip side, printing to the console also blocks hardlockups from
> >> showing up.  But I believe loooong ago, Paul adjusted the rcu stalls to be
> >> longer than a hardlockup/softlockup timeout to prevent such scenarios.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I am not sure what to do here.  Printing to the console has traditionally
> >> been slow (especially if doing so with interrupts disabled), so a
> >> touch_nmi_watchdog has been necessary.  But a side effect of that, is it
> >> prevents the lockup detectors from going off if printing repeatedly.
> >>
> >>
> >> Now we can hack up rcu stall to only print once until it is re-armed.
> >> This would show rcu stall printing first, followed two minutes later by
> >> a softlockup, which sorta achieves what you want.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> However, at the end of the day, an rcu stall, softlockup or hardlockup is
> >> a bad thing, does it matter if you get one or all of them?  One should be
> >> enough to start an investigation, no?
> > 
> > Hear, hear!!!
> > 
> Ok, thanks for Don's and your patience!
> We enriched softlockup printk information, so we want to get softlockup warnning.

Booting with "rcupdate.rcu_cpu_stall_suppress=1" will shut up the RCU
CPU stall warnings.

							Thanx, Paul

> >> I don't know.  I am leaning towards 'working as expected' and nothing to
> >> really fix here.  Does anyone have any suggestions on what assumptions we
> >> could change to handle this better?
> >>
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Don
> >>
> >>>
> >>> / #
> >>> / # echo 60 > /proc/sys/kernel/watchdog_thresh
> >>> / # busybox insmod softlockup_test.ko &
> >>> / # [   39.044058] INFO: rcu_preempt detected stalls on CPUs/tasks: {} (detected by 0, t=21002 jiffies, g=78, c=77, q=4)
> >>> [   39.044058] INFO: Stall ended before state dump start
> >>> [  102.049045] INFO: rcu_preempt detected stalls on CPUs/tasks: {} (detected by 0, t=84007 jiffies, g=78, c=77, q=4)
> >>> [  102.049045] INFO: Stall ended before state dump start
> >>> [  160.482123] BUG: soft lockup - CPU#0 stuck for 134s! [busybox:54]
> >>> [  165.054075] INFO: rcu_preempt detected stalls on CPUs/tasks: {} (detected by 0, t=147012 jiffies, g=78, c=77, q=4)
> >>> [  165.054075] INFO: Stall ended before state dump start
> >>> [  228.059045] INFO: rcu_preempt detected stalls on CPUs/tasks: {} (detected by 0, t=210017 jiffies, g=78, c=77, q=4)
> >>> [  228.059045] INFO: Stall ended before state dump start
> >>> [  291.064099] INFO: rcu_preempt detected stalls on CPUs/tasks: {} (detected by 0, t=273022 jiffies, g=78, c=77, q=4)
> >>> [  291.064099] INFO: Stall ended before state dump start
> >>> [  354.069074] INFO: rcu_preempt detected stalls on CPUs/tasks: {} (detected by 0, t=336027 jiffies, g=78, c=77, q=4)
> >>> [  354.069099] INFO: Stall ended before state dump start
> >>> [  417.074045] INFO: rcu_preempt detected stalls on CPUs/tasks: {} (detected by 0, t=399032 jiffies, g=78, c=77, q=4)
> >>> [  417.074045] INFO: Stall ended before state dump start
> >>> [  480.079099] INFO: rcu_preempt detected stalls on CPUs/tasks: {} (detected by 0, t=462037 jiffies, g=78, c=77, q=4)
> >>> [  480.079099] INFO: Stall ended before state dump start
> >>> [  543.084099] INFO: rcu_preempt detected stalls on CPUs/tasks: {} (detected by 0, t=525042 jiffies, g=78, c=77, q=4)
> >>> [  543.084099] INFO: Stall ended before state dump start
> >>> [  606.089101] INFO: rcu_preempt detected stalls on CPUs/tasks: {} (detected by 0, t=588047 jiffies, g=78, c=77, q=4)
> >>> [  606.089101] INFO: Stall ended before state dump start
> >>> [  669.094099] INFO: rcu_preempt detected stalls on CPUs/tasks: {} (detected by 0, t=651052 jiffies, g=78, c=77, q=4)
> >>> [  669.094099] INFO: Stall ended before state dump start
> >>> [  732.099045] INFO: rcu_preempt detected stalls on CPUs/tasks: {} (detected by 0, t=714057 jiffies, g=78, c=77, q=4)
> >>> [  732.099045] INFO: Stall ended before state dump start
> >>> [  795.104074] INFO: rcu_preempt detected stalls on CPUs/tasks: {} (detected by 0, t=777062 jiffies, g=78, c=77, q=4)
> >>> [  795.104098] INFO: Stall ended before state dump start
> >>> [  858.109046] INFO: rcu_preempt detected stalls on CPUs/tasks: {} (detected by 0, t=840067 jiffies, g=78, c=77, q=4)
> >>> [  858.109046] INFO: Stall ended before state dump start
> >>> [  921.114100] INFO: rcu_preempt detected stalls on CPUs/tasks: {} (detected by 0, t=903072 jiffies, g=78, c=77, q=4)
> >>> [  921.114100] INFO: Stall ended before state dump start
> >>> [  984.119099] INFO: rcu_preempt detected stalls on CPUs/tasks: {} (detected by 0, t=966077 jiffies, g=78, c=77, q=4)
> >>> [  984.119099] INFO: Stall ended before state dump start
> >>> [ 1047.124075] INFO: rcu_preempt detected stalls on CPUs/tasks: {} (detected by 0, t=1029082 jiffies, g=78, c=77, q=4)
> >>> [ 1047.124099] INFO: Stall ended before state dump start
> >>> [ 1110.129046] INFO: rcu_preempt detected stalls on CPUs/tasks: {} (detected by 0, t=1092087 jiffies, g=78, c=77, q=4)
> >>> [ 1110.129046] INFO: Stall ended before state dump start
> >>> [ 1173.134045] INFO: rcu_preempt detected stalls on CPUs/tasks: {} (detected by 0, t=1155092 jiffies, g=78, c=77, q=4)
> >>> [ 1173.134045] INFO: Stall ended before state dump start
> >>> [ 1236.139101] INFO: rcu_preempt detected stalls on CPUs/tasks: {} (detected by 0, t=1218097 jiffies, g=78, c=77, q=4)
> >>> [ 1236.139101] INFO: Stall ended before state dump start
> >>> [ 1299.144059] INFO: rcu_preempt detected stalls on CPUs/tasks: {} (detected by 0, t=1281102 jiffies, g=78, c=77, q=4)
> >>> [ 1299.144059] INFO: Stall ended before state dump start
> >>> [ 1362.149099] INFO: rcu_preempt detected stalls on CPUs/tasks: {} (detected by 0, t=1344107 jiffies, g=78, c=77, q=4)
> >>> [ 1362.149099] INFO: Stall ended before state dump start
> >>> [ 1425.154059] INFO: rcu_preempt detected stalls on CPUs/tasks: {} (detected by 0, t=1407112 jiffies, g=78, c=77, q=4)
> >>> [ 1425.154059] INFO: Stall ended before state dump start
> >>> [ 1488.159046] INFO: rcu_preempt detected stalls on CPUs/tasks: {} (detected by 0, t=1470117 jiffies, g=78, c=77, q=4)
> >>> [ 1488.159046] INFO: Stall ended before state dump start
> >>> [ 1551.164045] INFO: rcu_preempt detected stalls on CPUs/tasks: {} (detected by 0, t=1533122 jiffies, g=78, c=77, q=4)
> >>> [ 1551.164045] INFO: Stall ended before state dump start
> >>> [ 1614.169057] INFO: rcu_preempt detected stalls on CPUs/tasks: {} (detected by 0, t=1596127 jiffies, g=78, c=77, q=4)
> >>> [ 1614.169057] INFO: Stall ended before state dump start
> >>> [ 1677.174060] INFO: rcu_preempt detected stalls on CPUs/tasks: {} (detected by 0, t=1659132 jiffies, g=78, c=77, q=4)
> >>> [ 1677.174060] INFO: Stall ended before state dump start
> >>> [ 1740.179045] INFO: rcu_preempt detected stalls on CPUs/tasks: {} (detected by 0, t=1722137 jiffies, g=78, c=77, q=4)
> >>> [ 1740.179045] INFO: Stall ended before state dump start
> >>> [ 1803.184075] INFO: rcu_preempt detected stalls on CPUs/tasks: {} (detected by 0, t=1785142 jiffies, g=78, c=77, q=4)
> >>> [ 1803.184101] INFO: Stall ended before state dump start
> >>> [ 1866.189046] INFO: rcu_preempt detected stalls on CPUs/tasks: {} (detected by 0, t=1848147 jiffies, g=78, c=77, q=4)
> >>> [ 1866.189046] INFO: Stall ended before state dump start
> >>> [ 1929.194045] INFO: rcu_preempt detected stalls on CPUs/tasks: {} (detected by 0, t=1911152 jiffies, g=78, c=77, q=4)
> >>> [ 1929.194045] INFO: Stall ended before state dump start
> >>> [ 1992.199083] INFO: rcu_preempt detected stalls on CPUs/tasks: {} (detected by 0, t=1974157 jiffies, g=78, c=77, q=4)
> >>> [ 1992.199083] INFO: Stall ended before state dump start
> >>> [ 2055.204098] INFO: rcu_preempt detected stalls on CPUs/tasks: {} (detected by 0, t=2037162 jiffies, g=78, c=77, q=4)
> >>> [ 2055.204098] INFO: Stall ended before state dump start
> >>> [ 2118.209045] INFO: rcu_preempt detected stalls on CPUs/tasks: {} (detected by 0, t=2100167 jiffies, g=78, c=77, q=4)
> >>> [ 2118.209045] INFO: Stall ended before state dump start
> >>> [ 2181.214098] INFO: rcu_preempt detected stalls on CPUs/tasks: {} (detected by 0, t=2163172 jiffies, g=78, c=77, q=4)
> >>> [ 2181.214098] INFO: Stall ended before state dump start
> >>>>
> >>>> Cheers,
> >>>> Don
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/kernel/watchdog.c b/kernel/watchdog.c
> >>>> index 70bf118..833c015 100644
> >>>> --- a/kernel/watchdog.c
> >>>> +++ b/kernel/watchdog.c
> >>>> @@ -209,7 +209,7 @@ void touch_nmi_watchdog(void)
> >>>>  	 * going off.
> >>>>  	 */
> >>>>  	raw_cpu_write(watchdog_nmi_touch, true);
> >>>> -	touch_softlockup_watchdog();
> >>>> +	//touch_softlockup_watchdog();
> >>>>  }
> >>>>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(touch_nmi_watchdog);
> >>>>  
> >>>>
> >>>> .
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> > 
> > 
> > .
> > 
> 
> 


      reply	other threads:[~2015-01-22  5:15 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-01-19  8:07 RCU CPU stall console spews leads to soft lockup disabled is reasonable ? Zhang Zhen
2015-01-19  8:42 ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-01-19  9:04   ` Zhang Zhen
2015-01-19 11:09     ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-01-20  3:17       ` Zhang Zhen
2015-01-20  3:33         ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-01-19 14:06     ` Don Zickus
2015-01-20  3:09       ` Zhang Zhen
2015-01-20 15:25         ` Don Zickus
2015-01-21  2:26           ` Zhang Zhen
2015-01-21  3:13             ` Zhang Zhen
2015-01-21  6:54               ` Zhang Zhen
2015-01-21  7:02                 ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-01-21  7:25                   ` Zhang Zhen
2015-01-21  9:05                   ` Zhang Zhen
2015-01-21 10:16                     ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-01-21 11:11                       ` Zhang Zhen
2015-01-21 20:04                         ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-01-21 15:10             ` Don Zickus
2015-01-21 20:06               ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-01-22  3:08                 ` Zhang Zhen
2015-01-22  5:15                   ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]

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=20150122051529.GL9719@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=dipankar@in.ibm.com \
    --cc=dzickus@redhat.com \
    --cc=josh@freedesktop.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=morgan.wang@huawei.com \
    --cc=zhenzhang.zhang@huawei.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).