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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
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>
 <20190719195728.GF14271@linux.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <20190719195728.GF14271@linux.ibm.com>
From:   Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Date:   Fri, 19 Jul 2019 16:33:56 -0400
Message-ID: <CAEXW_YQADrPRtJW7yJZyROH1_d2yOA7_1HVgm50wxpOC80+=Wg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcu: Make jiffies_till_sched_qs writable
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Byungchul Park <max.byungchul.park@gmail.com>,
        Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>,
        rcu <rcu@vger.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        kernel-team@lge.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 3:57 PM Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> 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!

Me too will think more about it ;-) Agreed with point about 100s of
CPUs usecase,

Thanks, have a great weekend,

 - Joel