From: Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: 3.9.x: Possible race related to stop_machine leads to lockup.
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2013 08:11:05 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <51AF5509.1070706@candelatech.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87mwr5rwxo.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
On 06/04/2013 09:41 PM, Rusty Russell wrote:
> Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com> writes:
>> On 06/04/2013 02:18 PM, Ben Greear wrote:
>>> I've been trying to figure out why I see the migration/* processes
>>> hang in a busy loop....
>>>
>>> While reading the stop_machine.c file, I think I might have an
>>> answer.
>>>
>>> The set_state() method sets the thread_ack to the current number
>>> of threads. Each thread's state machine then decrements it down to
>>> zero where it bumps the state to the next level. This lets each
>>> cpu stop in lock-step it seems.
>>>
>>> But, from what I can tell, the __stop_machine() method can
>>> (re)set the state to STOPMACHINE_PREPARE while the migration
>>> processes are in their loop. That would explain why they sometimes
>>> loop forever.
>>>
>>> Does this make sense?
>>
>> Err, no..that doesn't make sense. 'smdata' is on the stack.
>>
>> More printk debugging makes it look like one thread just
>> never notices that smdata->state has been updated by another
>> thread.
>>
>> There is this comment..maybe cpu_relax only does the chill out part
>> and we need something else to make sure smdata->state is freshly
>> read from the other CPU's cache?
>>
>> /* Chill out and ensure we re-read stopmachine_state. */
>> cpu_relax();
>> if (smdata->state != curstate) {
>>
>> Gah..way out of my league :P
>
> What architecture? Maybe someone didn't get the memo; cpu_relax()
> should be a read barrier.
I tried making it and smp read barier, and tried using atomic_t for the state
object. No big help.
Latest theory is that one thread gets stuck doing IRQs while rest of CPUs have
disabled IRQs and that one CPU/thread never gets back to the cpu shutdown state
machine.
I'll post a more complete debugging patch later today, and try to find
a better way to reproduce it.
Thanks,
Ben
>
> Cheers,
> Rusty.
>
--
Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com
prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-06-05 15:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-06-04 21:18 3.9.x: Possible race related to stop_machine leads to lockup Ben Greear
2013-06-04 22:13 ` Ben Greear
2013-06-05 4:41 ` Rusty Russell
2013-06-05 15:11 ` Ben Greear [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=51AF5509.1070706@candelatech.com \
--to=greearb@candelatech.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tj@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