From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: RCU stall warnings...
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:44:11 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170725024411.GA27413@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170724234927.GK3730@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 04:49:27PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 04:34:58PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> > From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 16:20:33 -0700
[ . . . ]
> > That would take a while as it's hard to forcibly set this thing off.
>
> And my similar error can take awhile as well. But maybe I should try
> forcing nr_cpus=43 and maxcpus=8 on older versions to see what happens.
>
> A bisection would of course be quite helpful, depending of course on
> the value of "a while". ;-)
And if "a while" is too long, one alternative is to enable event tracing
for timers, as in why didn't they wake the grace-period kthread?
For example, it is possible that that kthread set its status (which
was printed out in the "rcu_sched kthread starved" message) but for
whatever reason didn't make it to the swait_event_idle_timeout()
immediately afterwards;
rsp->gp_state = RCU_GP_WAIT_FQS;
ret = swait_event_idle_timeout(rsp->gp_wq,
rcu_gp_fqs_check_wake(rsp, &gf), j);
Or that the timer-based wakeup didn't happen for whatever reason. Or...
Thanx, Paul
> > ====================
> > commit f92c734f02cbf10e40569facff82059ae9b61920
> > Author: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > Date: Mon Apr 10 15:40:35 2017 -0700
> >
> > rcu: Prevent rcu_barrier() from starting needless grace periods
> >
> > Currently rcu_barrier() uses call_rcu() to enqueue new callbacks
> > on each CPU with a non-empty callback list. This works, but means
> > that rcu_barrier() forces grace periods that are not otherwise needed.
> > The key point is that rcu_barrier() never needs to wait for a grace
> > period, but instead only for all pre-existing callbacks to be invoked.
> > This means that rcu_barrier()'s new callbacks should be placed in
> > the callback-list segment containing the last pre-existing callback.
> >
> > This commit makes this change using the new rcu_segcblist_entrain()
> > function.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-07-25 2:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-07-24 22:32 RCU stall warnings David Miller
2017-07-24 23:20 ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-07-24 23:34 ` David Miller
2017-07-24 23:49 ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-07-25 2:44 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2017-07-25 3:45 ` Stephen Rothwell
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=20170725024411.GA27413@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sparclinux@vger.kernel.org \
/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