Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752190AbaJ0RoV (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Oct 2014 13:44:21 -0400 Received: from e8.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.138]:51399 "EHLO e8.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751632AbaJ0RoT (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Oct 2014 13:44:19 -0400 Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 10:40:25 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Eric B Munson Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: Commit 35ce7f29a breaks hibernation for XPS 13 Message-ID: <20141027174025.GA27568@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <20141024160815.GA2968@akamai.com> <20141024161634.GR4977@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20141024163612.GA2256@akamai.com> <20141024171818.GU4977@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20141024184028.GA2220@akamai.com> <20141024203124.GZ4977@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20141027134757.GA2936@akamai.com> <20141027151021.GC5718@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20141027151021.GC5718@linux.vnet.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 14102717-0029-0000-0000-000000EAA3E4 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 08:10:21AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 09:47:57AM -0400, Eric B Munson wrote: > > On Fri, 24 Oct 2014, Paul E. McKenney wrote: [ . . . ] > > > > Still didn't help. If it helps, when I attempt to reboot after trying > > > > to hibernate I see a kworker thread hung and get the stack trace below > > > > from that thread. I assume this is the same thread that is holding up > > > > the hibernate. > > > > > > Yep, looks like something that some other people are running into as well. > > > > > > If you turn off CONFIG_RCU_NOCB_CPU, do you still get the failure? > > > > Disabling CONFIG_RCU_NOCB_CPU fixes the problem. I am able to hibernate > > and resume successfully. > > Very good! Then the fix I am working on might actually be a fix. ;-) And here is a patch that passes preliminary testing at my end. Does it help at your end? Thanx, Paul ------------------------------------------------------------------------ rcu: Make rcu_barrier() understand about missing rcuo kthreads Commit 35ce7f29a44a (rcu: Create rcuo kthreads only for onlined CPUs) avoids creating rcuo kthreads for CPUs that never come online. This fixes a bug in many instances of firmware: Instead of lying about their age, these systems instead lie about the number of CPUs that they have. Before commit 35ce7f29a44a, this could result in huge numbers of useless rcuo kthreads being created. It appears that experience indicates that I should have told the people suffering from this problem to fix their broken firmware, but I instead produced what turned out to be a partial fix. The missing piece supplied by this commit makes sure that rcu_barrier() knows not to post callbacks for no-CBs CPUs that have not yet come online, because otherwise rcu_barrier() will hang on systems having firmware that lies about the number of CPUs. It is tempting to simply have rcu_barrier() refuse to post a callback on any no-CBs CPU that does not have an rcuo kthread. This unfortunately does not work because rcu_barrier() is required to wait for all pending callbacks. It is therefore required to wait even for those callbacks that cannot possibly be invoked. Even if doing so hangs the system. Given that posting a callback to a no-CBs CPU that does not yet have an rcuo kthread can hang rcu_barrier(), It is tempting to report an error in this case. Unfortunately, this will result in false positives at boot time, when it is perfectly legal to post callbacks to the boot CPU before the scheduler has started, in other words, before it is legal to invoke rcu_barrier(). So this commit instead has rcu_barrier() avoid posting callbacks to CPUs having neither rcuo kthread nor pending callbacks, and has it complain bitterly if it finds CPUs having no rcuo kthread but some pending callbacks. And when rcu_barrier() does find CPUs having no rcuo kthread but pending callbacks, as noted earlier, it has no choice but to hang indefinitely. Reported-by: Yanko Kaneti Reported-by: Jay Vosburgh Reported-by: Eric B Munson Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney diff --git a/include/trace/events/rcu.h b/include/trace/events/rcu.h index aa8e5eea3ab4..c78e88ce5ea3 100644 --- a/include/trace/events/rcu.h +++ b/include/trace/events/rcu.h @@ -660,18 +660,18 @@ TRACE_EVENT(rcu_torture_read, /* * Tracepoint for _rcu_barrier() execution. The string "s" describes * the _rcu_barrier phase: - * "Begin": rcu_barrier_callback() started. - * "Check": rcu_barrier_callback() checking for piggybacking. - * "EarlyExit": rcu_barrier_callback() piggybacked, thus early exit. - * "Inc1": rcu_barrier_callback() piggyback check counter incremented. - * "Offline": rcu_barrier_callback() found offline CPU - * "OnlineNoCB": rcu_barrier_callback() found online no-CBs CPU. - * "OnlineQ": rcu_barrier_callback() found online CPU with callbacks. - * "OnlineNQ": rcu_barrier_callback() found online CPU, no callbacks. + * "Begin": _rcu_barrier() started. + * "Check": _rcu_barrier() checking for piggybacking. + * "EarlyExit": _rcu_barrier() piggybacked, thus early exit. + * "Inc1": _rcu_barrier() piggyback check counter incremented. + * "OfflineNoCB": _rcu_barrier() found callback on never-online CPU + * "OnlineNoCB": _rcu_barrier() found online no-CBs CPU. + * "OnlineQ": _rcu_barrier() found online CPU with callbacks. + * "OnlineNQ": _rcu_barrier() found online CPU, no callbacks. * "IRQ": An rcu_barrier_callback() callback posted on remote CPU. * "CB": An rcu_barrier_callback() invoked a callback, not the last. * "LastCB": An rcu_barrier_callback() invoked the last callback. - * "Inc2": rcu_barrier_callback() piggyback check counter incremented. + * "Inc2": _rcu_barrier() piggyback check counter incremented. * The "cpu" argument is the CPU or -1 if meaningless, the "cnt" argument * is the count of remaining callbacks, and "done" is the piggybacking count. */ diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c index f6880052b917..7680fc275036 100644 --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c @@ -3312,11 +3312,16 @@ static void _rcu_barrier(struct rcu_state *rsp) continue; rdp = per_cpu_ptr(rsp->rda, cpu); if (rcu_is_nocb_cpu(cpu)) { - _rcu_barrier_trace(rsp, "OnlineNoCB", cpu, - rsp->n_barrier_done); - atomic_inc(&rsp->barrier_cpu_count); - __call_rcu(&rdp->barrier_head, rcu_barrier_callback, - rsp, cpu, 0); + if (!rcu_nocb_cpu_needs_barrier(rsp, cpu)) { + _rcu_barrier_trace(rsp, "OfflineNoCB", cpu, + rsp->n_barrier_done); + } else { + _rcu_barrier_trace(rsp, "OnlineNoCB", cpu, + rsp->n_barrier_done); + atomic_inc(&rsp->barrier_cpu_count); + __call_rcu(&rdp->barrier_head, + rcu_barrier_callback, rsp, cpu, 0); + } } else if (ACCESS_ONCE(rdp->qlen)) { _rcu_barrier_trace(rsp, "OnlineQ", cpu, rsp->n_barrier_done); diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.h b/kernel/rcu/tree.h index 4beab3d2328c..8e7b1843896e 100644 --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.h +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.h @@ -587,6 +587,7 @@ static void print_cpu_stall_info(struct rcu_state *rsp, int cpu); static void print_cpu_stall_info_end(void); static void zero_cpu_stall_ticks(struct rcu_data *rdp); static void increment_cpu_stall_ticks(void); +static bool rcu_nocb_cpu_needs_barrier(struct rcu_state *rsp, int cpu); static void rcu_nocb_gp_set(struct rcu_node *rnp, int nrq); static void rcu_nocb_gp_cleanup(struct rcu_state *rsp, struct rcu_node *rnp); static void rcu_init_one_nocb(struct rcu_node *rnp); diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h index 927c17b081c7..68c5b23b7173 100644 --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h @@ -2050,6 +2050,33 @@ static void wake_nocb_leader(struct rcu_data *rdp, bool force) } /* + * Does the specified CPU need an RCU callback for the specified flavor + * of rcu_barrier()? + */ +static bool rcu_nocb_cpu_needs_barrier(struct rcu_state *rsp, int cpu) +{ + struct rcu_data *rdp = per_cpu_ptr(rsp->rda, cpu); + struct rcu_head *rhp; + + /* No-CBs CPUs might have callbacks on any of three lists. */ + rhp = ACCESS_ONCE(rdp->nocb_head); + if (!rhp) + rhp = ACCESS_ONCE(rdp->nocb_gp_head); + if (!rhp) + rhp = ACCESS_ONCE(rdp->nocb_follower_head); + + /* Having no rcuo kthread but CBs after scheduler starts is bad! */ + if (!ACCESS_ONCE(rdp->nocb_kthread) && rhp) { + /* RCU callback enqueued before CPU first came online??? */ + pr_err("RCU: Never-onlined no-CBs CPU %d has CB %p\n", + cpu, rhp->func); + WARN_ON_ONCE(1); + } + + return !!rhp; +} + +/* * Enqueue the specified string of rcu_head structures onto the specified * CPU's no-CBs lists. The CPU is specified by rdp, the head of the * string by rhp, and the tail of the string by rhtp. The non-lazy/lazy @@ -2646,6 +2673,10 @@ static bool init_nocb_callback_list(struct rcu_data *rdp) #else /* #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_NOCB_CPU */ +static bool rcu_nocb_cpu_needs_barrier(struct rcu_state *rsp, int cpu) +{ +} + static void rcu_nocb_gp_cleanup(struct rcu_state *rsp, struct rcu_node *rnp) { } -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/