Re: frequent lockups in 3.18rc4

[Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>]

On Tue, 18 Nov 2014, Dave Jones wrote:
> Here's the first hit. Curiously, one cpu is missing.

I don't think so

> NMI watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#1 stuck for 23s! [trinity-c180:17837]

> irq event stamp: 2258092
> hardirqs last  enabled at (2258091): [<ffffffffa91a58b5>] get_page_from_freelist+0x555/0xaa0
> hardirqs last disabled at (2258092): [<ffffffffa985396a>] apic_timer_interrupt+0x6a/0x80

So that means we are in the timer interrupt and handling
watchdog_timer_fn.

> CPU: 1 PID: 17837 Comm: trinity-c180 Not tainted 3.18.0-rc5+ #90 [loadavg: 199.00 178.81 173.92 35/402 20526]
> task: ffff8801575e4680 ti: ffff880202434000 task.ti: ffff880202434000
> RIP: 0010:[<ffffffffa91a0db0>]  [<ffffffffa91a0db0>] bad_range+0x0/0x90

So the softlockup tells us, that the high priority watchdog thread was
not able to touch the watchdog timestamp. That means this task was
hogging the CPU for 20+ seconds. I have no idea how that happens in
that call chain.

Call Trace:
 [<ffffffffa91a58c4>] ? get_page_from_freelist+0x564/0xaa0
 [<ffffffffa90ac411>] ? get_parent_ip+0x11/0x50
 [<ffffffffa91a6030>] __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x230/0xd20
 [<ffffffffa90ac411>] ? get_parent_ip+0x11/0x50
 [<ffffffffa90d1e45>] ? mark_held_locks+0x75/0xa0
 [<ffffffffa91f400e>] alloc_pages_vma+0xee/0x1b0
 [<ffffffffa91b643e>] ? shmem_alloc_page+0x6e/0xc0
 [<ffffffffa91b643e>] shmem_alloc_page+0x6e/0xc0
 [<ffffffffa90ac411>] ? get_parent_ip+0x11/0x50
 [<ffffffffa90ac58b>] ? preempt_count_sub+0x7b/0x100
 [<ffffffffa93dcc46>] ? __percpu_counter_add+0x86/0xb0
 [<ffffffffa91d50d6>] ? __vm_enough_memory+0x66/0x1c0
 [<ffffffffa919ad65>] ? find_get_entry+0x5/0x230
 [<ffffffffa933b10c>] ? cap_vm_enough_memory+0x4c/0x60
 [<ffffffffa91b8ff0>] shmem_getpage_gfp+0x630/0xa40
 [<ffffffffa90cee01>] ? match_held_lock+0x111/0x160
 [<ffffffffa91b9442>] shmem_write_begin+0x42/0x70
 [<ffffffffa919a684>] generic_perform_write+0xd4/0x1f0
 [<ffffffffa919d5d2>] __generic_file_write_iter+0x162/0x350
 [<ffffffffa92154a0>] ? new_sync_read+0xd0/0xd0
 [<ffffffffa919d7ff>] generic_file_write_iter+0x3f/0xb0
 [<ffffffffa919d7c0>] ? __generic_file_write_iter+0x350/0x350
 [<ffffffffa92155e8>] do_iter_readv_writev+0x78/0xc0
 [<ffffffffa9216e18>] do_readv_writev+0xd8/0x2a0
 [<ffffffffa919d7c0>] ? __generic_file_write_iter+0x350/0x350
 [<ffffffffa90cf426>] ? lock_release_holdtime.part.28+0xe6/0x160
 [<ffffffffa919d7c0>] ? __generic_file_write_iter+0x350/0x350
 [<ffffffffa90ac411>] ? get_parent_ip+0x11/0x50
 [<ffffffffa90ac58b>] ? preempt_count_sub+0x7b/0x100
 [<ffffffffa90e782e>] ? rcu_read_lock_held+0x6e/0x80
 [<ffffffffa921706c>] vfs_writev+0x3c/0x50
 [<ffffffffa92171dc>] SyS_writev+0x5c/0x100
 [<ffffffffa9852c49>] tracesys_phase2+0xd4/0xd9

But this gets pages for a write into shmem and the other one below
does a madvise on a shmem map. Coincidence?

> sending NMI to other CPUs:

So here we kick the other cpus

> NMI backtrace for cpu 2
> CPU: 2 PID: 15913 Comm: trinity-c141 Not tainted 3.18.0-rc5+ #90 [loadavg: 199.00 178.81 173.92 35/402 20526]
> task: ffff880223229780 ti: ffff8801afca0000 task.ti: ffff8801afca0000
> RIP: 0010:[<ffffffffa9116dbe>]  [<ffffffffa9116dbe>] generic_exec_single+0xee/0x1a0
>  [<ffffffffa9045bb0>] ? do_flush_tlb_all+0x60/0x60
>  [<ffffffffa9045bb0>] ? do_flush_tlb_all+0x60/0x60
>  [<ffffffffa9116f3a>] smp_call_function_single+0x6a/0xe0
>  [<ffffffffa93b2e1f>] ? cpumask_next_and+0x4f/0xb0
>  [<ffffffffa9045bb0>] ? do_flush_tlb_all+0x60/0x60
>  [<ffffffffa9117679>] smp_call_function_many+0x2b9/0x320
>  [<ffffffffa9046370>] flush_tlb_mm_range+0xe0/0x370
>  [<ffffffffa91cc762>] tlb_flush_mmu_tlbonly+0x42/0x50
>  [<ffffffffa91cdd28>] unmap_single_vma+0x6b8/0x900
>  [<ffffffffa91ce06c>] zap_page_range_single+0xfc/0x160
>  [<ffffffffa91ce254>] unmap_mapping_range+0x134/0x190
>  [<ffffffffa91bb9dd>] shmem_fallocate+0x4fd/0x520
>  [<ffffffffa90c7c77>] ? prepare_to_wait+0x27/0x90
>  [<ffffffffa9213bc2>] do_fallocate+0x132/0x1d0
>  [<ffffffffa91e3228>] SyS_madvise+0x398/0x870
>  [<ffffffffa983f6c0>] ? rcu_read_lock_sched_held+0x4e/0x6a
>  [<ffffffffa9013877>] ? syscall_trace_enter_phase2+0xa7/0x2b0
>  [<ffffffffa9852c49>] tracesys_phase2+0xd4/0xd9

We've seen that before

> NMI backtrace for cpu 0
> INFO: NMI handler (arch_trigger_all_cpu_backtrace_handler) took too long to run: 37.091 msecs

So it complains that the backtrace handler took 37 msec, which is
indeed long for just dumping a stack trace.

> CPU: 0 PID: 15851 Comm: trinity-c80 Not tainted 3.18.0-rc5+ #90 [loadavg: 199.00 178.81 173.92 36/402 20526]
> task: ffff8801874e8000 ti: ffff88022baec000 task.ti: ffff88022baec000
> RIP: 0010:[<ffffffffa90ac450>]  [<ffffffffa90ac450>] preempt_count_add+0x0/0xc0
> RSP: 0000:ffff880244003c30  EFLAGS: 00000092
> RAX: 0000000000000001 RBX: ffffffffa9edb560 RCX: 0000000000000001
> RDX: 0000000000000001 RSI: 0000000000000001 RDI: 0000000000000001
> RBP: ffff880244003c48 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 0000000000000001
> R10: 0000000000000000 R11: ffff8801874e88c8 [23543.271956] NMI backtrace for cpu 3

So here we mangle CPU3 in and lose the backtrace for cpu0, which might
be the real interesting one ....

> INFO: NMI handler (arch_trigger_all_cpu_backtrace_handler) took too long to run: 100.612 msecs

This one takes 100ms.

> CPU: 3 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/3 Not tainted 3.18.0-rc5+ #90 [loadavg: 199.00 178.81 173.92 37/402 20526]
> task: ffff880242b5c680 ti: ffff880242b78000 task.ti: ffff880242b78000
> RIP: 0010:[<ffffffffa94251b5>]  [<ffffffffa94251b5>] intel_idle+0xd5/0x180

So that one is simply idle.

> INFO: NMI handler (arch_trigger_all_cpu_backtrace_handler) took too long to run: 125.739 msecs
> 

And we get another backtrace handler taking too long. Of course we
cannot tell which of the 3 complaints comes from which cpu, because
the printk lacks a cpuid.

Thanks,

	tglx