Re: softlockups in multi_cpu_stop

Ming Lei
2015-03-07T03:39:23Z

On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 2015-03-07 at 11:08 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com> wrote:
>> > On Sat, 2015-03-07 at 10:10 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
>> >> On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> wrote:
>> >> > On Sat, 2015-03-07 at 09:55 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
>> >> >> On Fri, 06 Mar 2015 14:15:37 -0800
>> >> >> Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > On Fri, 2015-03-06 at 13:12 -0800, Jason Low wrote:
>> >> >> > > In owner_running() there are 2 conditions that would make it return
>> >> >> > > false: if the owner changed or if the owner is not running. However,
>> >> >> > > that patch continues spinning if there is a "new owner" but it does not
>> >> >> > > take into account that we may want to stop spinning if the owner is not
>> >> >> > > running (due to getting rescheduled).
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > So you're rationale is that we're missing this need_resched:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > while (owner_running(sem, owner)) {
>> >> >> > /* abort spinning when need_resched */
>> >> >> > if (need_resched()) {
>> >> >> > rcu_read_unlock();
>> >> >> > return false;
>> >> >> > }
>> >> >> > }
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Because the owner_running() would return false, right? Yeah that makes
>> >> >> > sense, as missing a resched is a bug, as opposed to our heuristics being
>> >> >> > so painfully off.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Sasha, Ming (Cc'ed), does this address the issues you guys are seeing?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> For the xfstest lockup, what matters is that the owner isn't running, since
>> >> >> the following simple change does fix the issue:
>> >> >
>> >> > I much prefer Jason's approach, which should also take care of the
>> >> > issue, as it includes the !owner->on_cpu stop condition to stop
>> >> > spinning.
>> >>
>> >> But the check on owner->on_cpu should be moved outside the loop
>> >> because new owner can be scheduled out too, right?
>> >
>> > We should keep the owner->on_cpu check inside the loop, otherwise we
>> > could continue spinning if the owner is not running.
>>
>> So how about checking in this way outside the loop for avoiding the spin?
>>
>> if (owner)
>> return owner->on_cpu;
>
> So these owner->on_cpu checks outside of the loop "fixes" the issue as
> well, but I don't see the benefit of needing to guess why we break out
> of the spin loop (which may make things less readable) and checking
> owner->on_cpu duplicate times when one check is enough.

I mean moving the check on owner->on_cpu outside loop, so there is
only one check for both new and old owner. If it is inside loop,
the check is only on old owner.

That is correct to keep it inside loop if you guys are sure new
owner can't be scheduled out, but better to add comment why
it can't, looks no one explained yet.

Thanks,