Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751701AbaJ1MzB (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Oct 2014 08:55:01 -0400 Received: from e7.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.137]:42786 "EHLO e7.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751005AbaJ1My6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Oct 2014 08:54:58 -0400 Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 05:50:59 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Yanko Kaneti Cc: Jay Vosburgh , Josh Boyer , "Eric W. Biederman" , Cong Wang , Kevin Fenzi , netdev , "Linux-Kernel@Vger. Kernel. Org" , mroos@linux.ee, tj@kernel.org Subject: Re: localed stuck in recent 3.18 git in copy_net_ns? Message-ID: <20141028125059.GO5718@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <20141024225931.GC4977@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20141024230524.GA16023@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <10136.1414196448@famine> <20141025020324.GA28247@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <11813.1414211613@famine> <20141025051602.GB28247@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <15891.1414255096@famine> <20141025181827.GE28247@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20141027174539.GC27568@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20141028081243.GA32082@declera.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20141028081243.GA32082@declera.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 14102812-0025-0000-0000-000000EDA34D Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 10:12:43AM +0200, Yanko Kaneti wrote: > On Mon-10/27/14-2014 10:45, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 11:18:27AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 09:38:16AM -0700, Jay Vosburgh wrote: > > > > Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > > > > > >On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 09:33:33PM -0700, Jay Vosburgh wrote: > > > > >> Looking at the dmesg, the early boot messages seem to be > > > > >> confused as to how many CPUs there are, e.g., > > > > >> > > > > >> [ 0.000000] SLUB: HWalign=64, Order=0-3, MinObjects=0, CPUs=4, Nodes=1 > > > > >> [ 0.000000] Hierarchical RCU implementation. > > > > >> [ 0.000000] RCU debugfs-based tracing is enabled. > > > > >> [ 0.000000] RCU dyntick-idle grace-period acceleration is enabled. > > > > >> [ 0.000000] RCU restricting CPUs from NR_CPUS=256 to nr_cpu_ids=4. > > > > >> [ 0.000000] RCU: Adjusting geometry for rcu_fanout_leaf=16, nr_cpu_ids=4 > > > > >> [ 0.000000] NR_IRQS:16640 nr_irqs:456 0 > > > > >> [ 0.000000] Offload RCU callbacks from all CPUs > > > > >> [ 0.000000] Offload RCU callbacks from CPUs: 0-3. > > > > >> > > > > >> but later shows 2: > > > > >> > > > > >> [ 0.233703] x86: Booting SMP configuration: > > > > >> [ 0.236003] .... node #0, CPUs: #1 > > > > >> [ 0.255528] x86: Booted up 1 node, 2 CPUs > > > > >> > > > > >> In any event, the E8400 is a 2 core CPU with no hyperthreading. > > > > > > > > > >Well, this might explain some of the difficulties. If RCU decides to wait > > > > >on CPUs that don't exist, we will of course get a hang. And rcu_barrier() > > > > >was definitely expecting four CPUs. > > > > > > > > > >So what happens if you boot with maxcpus=2? (Or build with > > > > >CONFIG_NR_CPUS=2.) I suspect that this might avoid the hang. If so, > > > > >I might have some ideas for a real fix. > > > > > > > > Booting with maxcpus=2 makes no difference (the dmesg output is > > > > the same). > > > > > > > > Rebuilding with CONFIG_NR_CPUS=2 makes the problem go away, and > > > > dmesg has different CPU information at boot: > > > > > > > > [ 0.000000] smpboot: 4 Processors exceeds NR_CPUS limit of 2 > > > > [ 0.000000] smpboot: Allowing 2 CPUs, 0 hotplug CPUs > > > > [...] > > > > [ 0.000000] setup_percpu: NR_CPUS:2 nr_cpumask_bits:2 nr_cpu_ids:2 nr_node_ids:1 > > > > [...] > > > > [ 0.000000] Hierarchical RCU implementation. > > > > [ 0.000000] RCU debugfs-based tracing is enabled. > > > > [ 0.000000] RCU dyntick-idle grace-period acceleration is enabled. > > > > [ 0.000000] NR_IRQS:4352 nr_irqs:440 0 > > > > [ 0.000000] Offload RCU callbacks from all CPUs > > > > [ 0.000000] Offload RCU callbacks from CPUs: 0-1. > > > > > > Thank you -- this confirms my suspicions on the fix, though I must admit > > > to being surprised that maxcpus made no difference. > > > > And here is an alleged fix, lightly tested at this end. Does this patch > > help? > > Tested this on top of rc2 (as found in Fedora, and failing without the patch) > with all my modprobe scenarios and it seems to have fixed it. Very good! May I apply your Tested-by? Thanx, Paul > Thanks > -Yanko > > > > 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: Meelis Roos > > 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/