public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
	Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@stratus.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	stable@vger.kernel.org,
	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@qca.qualcomm.com>,
	Jouni Malinen <jouni@qca.qualcomm.com>,
	Vasanthakumar Thiagarajan <vthiagar@qca.qualcomm.com>,
	Senthil Balasubramanian <senthilb@qca.qualcomm.com>,
	linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, ath9k-devel@venema.h4ckr.net,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: stop_machine lockup issue in 3.9.y.
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2013 14:33:08 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <51AFAE94.5030007@candelatech.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130605211157.GK10693@mtj.dyndns.org>

On 06/05/2013 02:11 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> (cc'ing wireless crowd, tglx and Ingo.  The original thread is at
>   http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1500158/focus=55005 )
>
> Hello, Ben.
>
> On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 01:58:31PM -0700, Ben Greear wrote:
>> Hmm, wonder if I found it.  I previously saw times where it appears
>> jiffies does not increment.  __do_softirq has a break-out based on
>> jiffies timeout.  Maybe that is failing to get us out of __do_softirq
>> in my lockup case because for whatever reason the system cannot update
>> jiffies in this case?
>>
>> I added this (probably whitespace damaged) hack and now I have not been
>> able to reproduce the problem.
>
> Ah, nice catch. :)
>
>> diff --git a/kernel/softirq.c b/kernel/softirq.c
>> index 14d7758..621ea3b 100644
>> --- a/kernel/softirq.c
>> +++ b/kernel/softirq.c
>> @@ -212,6 +212,7 @@ asmlinkage void __do_softirq(void)
>>          unsigned long end = jiffies + MAX_SOFTIRQ_TIME;
>>          int cpu;
>>          unsigned long old_flags = current->flags;
>> +       unsigned long loops = 0;
>>
>>          /*
>>           * Mask out PF_MEMALLOC s current task context is borrowed for the
>> @@ -241,6 +242,7 @@ restart:
>>                          unsigned int vec_nr = h - softirq_vec;
>>                          int prev_count = preempt_count();
>>
>> +                       loops++;
>>                          kstat_incr_softirqs_this_cpu(vec_nr);
>>
>>                          trace_softirq_entry(vec_nr);
>> @@ -265,7 +267,7 @@ restart:
>>
>>          pending = local_softirq_pending();
>>          if (pending) {
>> -               if (time_before(jiffies, end) && !need_resched())
>> +               if (time_before(jiffies, end) && !need_resched() && (loops < 500))
>>                          goto restart;
>
> So, softirq most likely kicked off from ath9k is rescheduling itself
> to the extent where it ends up locking out the CPU completely.  The
> problem is usually okay because the processing would break out in 2ms
> but as jiffies is stopped in this case with all other CPUs trapped in
> stop_machine, the loop never breaks and the machine hangs.  While
> adding the counter limit probably isn't a bad idea, softirq requeueing
> itself indefinitely sounds pretty buggy.

Just to be clear on the ath9k part for the wifi folks:

This is basically un-patched 3.9.4, but I have 200 virtual stations
configured on each of two ath9k radios.  I cannot reproduce the problem
without ath9k, but I do not know for certain ath9k is the real
culprit.

In the case where I can most easily reproduce the lockup, ath9k virtual
stations would be trying to associate, so I'd expect a fair amount
of packet processing to be happening...

> ath9k people, do you guys have any idea what's going on?  Why would
> softirq repeat itself indefinitely?
>
> Ingo, Thomas, we're seeing a stop_machine hanging because
>
> * All other CPUs entered IRQ disabled stage.  Jiffies is not being
>    updated.
>
> * The last CPU get caught up executing softirq indefinitely.  As
>    jiffies doesn't get updated, it never breaks out of softirq
>    handling.  This is a deadlock.  This CPU won't break out of softirq
>    handling unless jiffies is updated and other CPUs can't do anything
>    until this CPU enters the same stop_machine stage.
>
> Ben found out that breaking out of softirq handling after certain
> number of repetitions makes the issue go away, which isn't a proper
> fix but we might want anyway.  What do you guys think?

Thanks,
Ben



-- 
Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com


  reply	other threads:[~2013-06-05 21:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-05-31 18:14 Please add to stable: module: don't unlink the module until we've removed all exposure Ben Greear
2013-06-02  5:09 ` Rusty Russell
2013-06-03  3:46   ` Joe Lawrence
2013-06-03 11:25     ` Joe Lawrence
2013-06-03 14:17       ` Joe Lawrence
2013-06-03 15:59         ` Ben Greear
2013-06-03 16:36           ` Ben Greear
2013-06-04  4:37             ` Rusty Russell
2013-06-04  5:56             ` Rusty Russell
2013-06-04 14:07               ` Joe Lawrence
2013-06-04 16:50                 ` Joe Lawrence
2013-06-04 16:53                 ` Ben Greear
2013-06-04 17:45                   ` Ben Greear
2013-06-05  4:17                     ` Rusty Russell
2013-06-05  7:15                       ` Tejun Heo
2013-06-05 16:59                         ` Ben Greear
2013-06-05 18:48                           ` Tejun Heo
2013-06-05 19:11                             ` Ben Greear
2013-06-05 19:31                               ` stop_machine lockup issue in 3.9.y Ben Greear
2013-06-05 20:58                                 ` Ben Greear
2013-06-05 21:11                                   ` Tejun Heo
2013-06-05 21:33                                     ` Ben Greear [this message]
2013-06-06  1:34                                     ` Eric Dumazet
2013-06-06  3:14                                       ` Tejun Heo
2013-06-06  3:26                                         ` Eric Dumazet
2013-06-06  3:41                                           ` Ben Greear
2013-06-06  3:46                                             ` Eric Dumazet
2013-06-06  3:50                                               ` Ben Greear
2013-06-06  4:08                                                 ` Eric Dumazet
2013-06-06 20:55                                             ` Tejun Heo
2013-06-06 21:15                                               ` Ben Greear
2013-06-06 21:17                                                 ` Tejun Heo
2013-06-05  3:29                 ` Please add to stable: module: don't unlink the module until we've removed all exposure Rusty Russell
2013-06-05  5:07         ` Greg KH
2013-06-05  7:13           ` Rusty Russell

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=51AFAE94.5030007@candelatech.com \
    --to=greearb@candelatech.com \
    --cc=ath9k-devel@venema.h4ckr.net \
    --cc=joe.lawrence@stratus.com \
    --cc=jouni@qca.qualcomm.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mcgrof@qca.qualcomm.com \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
    --cc=senthilb@qca.qualcomm.com \
    --cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=tj@kernel.org \
    --cc=vthiagar@qca.qualcomm.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