Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Fri, 19 Jul 2019 12:57:28 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
To:     Byungchul Park <max.byungchul.park@gmail.com>
Cc:     Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
        Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>,
        rcu <rcu@vger.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        kernel-team@lge.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcu: Make jiffies_till_sched_qs writable
Reply-To: paulmck@linux.ibm.com
References: <CANrsvRMh6L_sEmoF_K3Mx=1VcuGSwQAT8CZHep69aSZUTBvwpA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEXW_YTeAUuVqViBfiOTQhckMDH229oQdPXG6SNqGK0xYm-yzA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190713151330.GE26519@linux.ibm.com>
 <20190713154257.GE133650@google.com>
 <20190713174111.GG26519@linux.ibm.com>
 <CAEXW_YTcL-nOfJXkChGhvQtqqfSLpAYr327PLu1SmGEEADCevw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190719003942.GA28226@X58A-UD3R>
 <CAEXW_YQij-N2-NFjUQtsmYxVLtWxcQk_Kb16fGBzzPAZtWg+sg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190719074329.GY14271@linux.ibm.com>
 <CANrsvRM7ehvqcPtKMV7RyRCiXwe_R_TsLZiNtxBPY_qnSg2LNQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CANrsvRM7ehvqcPtKMV7RyRCiXwe_R_TsLZiNtxBPY_qnSg2LNQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Message-Id: <20190719195728.GF14271@linux.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 06:57:58PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 4:43 PM Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 08:52:52PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 8:40 PM Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com> wrote:
> > > [snip]
> > > > > - There is a bug in the CPU stopper machinery itself preventing it
> > > > > from scheduling the stopper on Y. Even though Y is not holding up the
> > > > > grace period.
> > > >
> > > > Or any thread on Y is busy with preemption/irq disabled preventing the
> > > > stopper from being scheduled on Y.
> > > >
> > > > Or something is stuck in ttwu() to wake up the stopper on Y due to any
> > > > scheduler locks such as pi_lock or rq->lock or something.
> > > >
> > > > I think what you mentioned can happen easily.
> > > >
> > > > Basically we would need information about preemption/irq disabled
> > > > sections on Y and scheduler's current activity on every cpu at that time.
> > >
> > > I think all that's needed is an NMI backtrace on all CPUs. An ARM we
> > > don't have NMI solutions and only IPI or interrupt based backtrace
> > > works which should at least catch and the preempt disable and softirq
> > > disable cases.
> >
> > True, though people with systems having hundreds of CPUs might not
> > thank you for forcing an NMI backtrace on each of them.  Is it possible
> > to NMI only the ones that are holding up the CPU stopper?
> 
> What a good idea! I think it's possible!
> 
> But we need to think about the case NMI doesn't work when the
> holding-up was caused by IRQ disabled.
> 
> Though it's just around the corner of weekend, I will keep thinking
> on it during weekend!

Very good!

							Thanx, Paul

> Thanks,
> Byungchul
> 
> >                                                         Thanx, Paul
> >
> > > But yeah I don't see why just the stacks of those CPUs that are
> > > blocking the CPU X would not suffice for the trivial cases where a
> > > piece of misbehaving code disable interrupts / preemption and
> > > prevented the stopper thread from executing.
> > >
> > > May be once the test case is ready (no rush!) , then it will be more
> > > clear what can help.
> > >
> > > J.
> > >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Thanks,
> Byungchul
>