Re: rcu_preempt self-detected stall on CPU from 4.5-rc3, since 3.17

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

On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 07:55:47AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 06:49:08AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 05:28:14PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 05:25:18PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 06:08:41AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 08:25:47AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > > > On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 02:06:41PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > [ . . . ]
> > > > 
> > > > > > > OK, so I should instrument migration_call() if I get the repro rate up?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Can do, maybe try the below first. (yes I know how long it all takes :/)
> > > > > 
> > > > > OK, will run this today, then run calibration for last night's run this
> > > > > evening.
> > 
> > And of 18 two-hour runs, there were five failures, or about 28%.
> > That said, I don't have even one significant digit on the failure rate,
> > as 5 of 18 is within the 95% confidence limits for a failure probability
> > as low as 12.5% and as high as 47%.
> 
> And after last night's run, this is narrowed down to between 23% and 38%,
> which is close enough.  Average is 30%, 18 failures in 60 runs.
> 
> Next step is to test Peter's patch some more.  Might take a couple of
> night's worth of runs to get statistical significance.  After which
> it will be time to rebase to 4.6-rc1.

And the first night was not so good: 6 failures out of 24 runs.  Adding
this to the 1-of-10 earlier gets 7 failures of 34.  Here are how things
stack up given the range of base failure estimates:

Low 95% bound of 23%:		84% confidence.

Actual measurement of 30%:	92% confidence.

High 95% bound of 38%:		98% confidence.

So there is still some chance that Peter's patch is helping.  I will
run for one more evening, after which it will be time to move forward
to 4.6-rc1.

							Thanx, Paul

> > However, the previous night's runs gave 7 failures in 24 two-hour runs,
> > for about a 29% failure rate.  There is thus a good probability that my
> > disabling of TIF_POLLING_NRFLAG had no effect whatsoever, tantalizing
> > though that possibility might have been.
> > 
> > (FWIW, I use the pdf_binomial() and quantile_binomial() functions in
> > maxima for computing this stuff.  Similar stuff is no doubt available
> > in other math/stat packages as well.)
> > 
> > So we have bugs, but not much idea where they are.  Situation normal.
> > 
> > Other thoughts?
> > 
> > 							Thanx, Paul
> > 
> > > > And there was one failure out of ten runs.  If last night's failure rate
> > > > was typical (7 of 24), then I believe we can be about 87% confident that
> > > > this change helped.  That isn't all that confident, but...
> > > 
> > > And, as Murphy would have it, the instrumentation didn't trigger.  I just
> > > got the usual stall-warning messages with a starving RCU grace-period
> > > kthread.
> > > 
> > > 							Thanx, Paul
> > > 
> > > > Tested-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > > 
> > > > So what to run tonight?
> > > > 
> > > > The most sane approach would be to run stock in order to get a baseline
> > > > failure rate.  It is tempting to run more of Peter's patch, but part of
> > > > the problem is that we don't know the current baseline.
> > > > 
> > > > So baseline it is...
> > > > 
> > > > 							Thanx, Paul
> > > > 
> > > > > Speaking of which, last night's run (disabling TIF_POLLING_NRFLAG)
> > > > > consisted of 24 two-hour runs.  Six of them had hard hangs, and another
> > > > > had a hang that eventually unhung of its own accord.  I believe that this
> > > > > is significantly fewer failures than from a stock kernel, but I could
> > > > > be wrong, and it will take some serious testing to give statistical
> > > > > confidence for whatever conclusion is correct.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > > The other interesting case would be resched_cpu(), which uses
> > > > > > > > set_nr_and_not_polling() to kick a remote cpu to call schedule(). It
> > > > > > > > atomically sets TIF_NEED_RESCHED and returns if TIF_POLLING_NRFLAG was
> > > > > > > > not set. If indeed not, it will send an IPI.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > This assumes the idle 'exit' path will do the same as the IPI does; and
> > > > > > > > if you look at cpu_idle_loop() it does indeed do both
> > > > > > > > preempt_fold_need_resched() and sched_ttwu_pending().
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Note that one cannot rely on irq_enter()/irq_exit() being called for the
> > > > > > > > scheduler IPI.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > OK, thank you for the info!  Any specific debug actions?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Dunno, something like the below should bring visibility into the
> > > > > > (lockless) wake_list thingy.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > So these trace_printk()s should happen between trace_sched_waking() and
> > > > > > trace_sched_wakeup() (I've not fully read the thread, but ISTR you had
> > > > > > some traces with these here thingies on).
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > >  arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h | 6 ++++--
> > > > > >  kernel/sched/core.c           | 9 +++++++++
> > > > > >  2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h
> > > > > > index 7766d1cf096e..5345784d5e41 100644
> > > > > > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h
> > > > > > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h
> > > > > > @@ -112,11 +112,13 @@ clear_bit(long nr, volatile unsigned long *addr)
> > > > > >  	if (IS_IMMEDIATE(nr)) {
> > > > > >  		asm volatile(LOCK_PREFIX "andb %1,%0"
> > > > > >  			: CONST_MASK_ADDR(nr, addr)
> > > > > > -			: "iq" ((u8)~CONST_MASK(nr)));
> > > > > > +			: "iq" ((u8)~CONST_MASK(nr))
> > > > > > +			: "memory");
> > > > > >  	} else {
> > > > > >  		asm volatile(LOCK_PREFIX "btr %1,%0"
> > > > > >  			: BITOP_ADDR(addr)
> > > > > > -			: "Ir" (nr));
> > > > > > +			: "Ir" (nr)
> > > > > > +			: "memory");
> > > > > >  	}
> > > > > >  }
> > > > > 
> > > > > Is the above addition of "memory" strictly for the debug below, or is
> > > > > it also a potential fix?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Starting it up regardless, but figured I should ask!
> > > > > 
> > > > > 							Thanx, Paul
> > > > > 
> > > > > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > > > > > index 0b21e7a724e1..b446f73c530d 100644
> > > > > > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> > > > > > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > > > > > @@ -1669,6 +1669,7 @@ void sched_ttwu_pending(void)
> > > > > >  	while (llist) {
> > > > > >  		p = llist_entry(llist, struct task_struct, wake_entry);
> > > > > >  		llist = llist_next(llist);
> > > > > > +		trace_printk("waking %d\n", p->pid);
> > > > > >  		ttwu_do_activate(rq, p, 0);
> > > > > >  	}
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > @@ -1719,6 +1720,7 @@ static void ttwu_queue_remote(struct task_struct *p, int cpu)
> > > > > >  	struct rq *rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >  	if (llist_add(&p->wake_entry, &cpu_rq(cpu)->wake_list)) {
> > > > > > +		trace_printk("queued %d for waking on %d\n", p->pid, cpu);
> > > > > >  		if (!set_nr_if_polling(rq->idle))
> > > > > >  			smp_send_reschedule(cpu);
> > > > > >  		else
> > > > > > @@ -5397,10 +5399,17 @@ migration_call(struct notifier_block *nfb, unsigned long action, void *hcpu)
> > > > > >  		migrate_tasks(rq);
> > > > > >  		BUG_ON(rq->nr_running != 1); /* the migration thread */
> > > > > >  		raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rq->lock, flags);
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +		/* really bad m'kay */
> > > > > > +		WARN_ON(!llist_empty(&rq->wake_list));
> > > > > > +
> > > > > >  		break;
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >  	case CPU_DEAD:
> > > > > >  		calc_load_migrate(rq);
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +		/* more bad */
> > > > > > +		WARN_ON(!llist_empty(&rq->wake_list));
> > > > > >  		break;
> > > > > >  #endif
> > > > > >  	}
> > > > > >