Re: softlockups in multi_cpu_stop

Jason Low
2015-03-07T02:56:36Z

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.