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:   Mon, 23 Mar 2020 18:23:51 +0000
From:   Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@arm.com>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Cc:     Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Hit WARN_ON() in rcutorture.c:1055
Message-ID: <20200323182351.xr764b6wafzs6fse@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
References: <20200323154309.nah44so2556ee56g@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
 <20200323155731.GK3199@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
 <20200323170609.w64xrfahd2snfz6h@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
 <20200323171751.GL3199@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
 <20200323174147.lneh4rp4tazhtm6x@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
 <20200323181010.GN3199@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200323181010.GN3199@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20171215
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 03/23/20 11:10, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 05:41:48PM +0000, Qais Yousef wrote:
> > On 03/23/20 10:17, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 05:06:10PM +0000, Qais Yousef wrote:
> > > > On 03/23/20 08:57, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 03:43:09PM +0000, Qais Yousef wrote:
> > > > > > Hi
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I hit the following warning while running rcutorture tests. It only happens
> > > > > > when I try to hibernate the system (arm64 Juno-r2).
> > > > > 
> > > > > Hibernating the system during rcutorture tests.  Now that is gutsy!  ;-)
> > > > 
> > > > Hehe was just a side effect of testing the cpu hotplug stuff :-)
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Let me know if you need additional info.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 1.	Do you need this to work?  If so, please tell me your use case.
> > > > 
> > > > Nope. It just happened while trying to stress the cpu hotplug series I just
> > > > posted.
> > > > 
> > > > > 2.	What is line 1055 of your rcutorture.c?  Here is my guess:
> > > > 
> > > > It's 5.6-rc6, sorry should have mentioned in the report.
> > > > 
> > > > 		/* Cycle through nesting levels of rcu_expedite_gp() calls. */
> > > > 		if (can_expedite &&
> > > > 		    !(torture_random(&rand) & 0xff & (!!expediting - 1))) {
> > > > 			WARN_ON_ONCE(expediting == 0 && rcu_gp_is_expedited());
> > > > 			if (expediting >= 0)
> > > > 				rcu_expedite_gp();
> > > > 			else
> > > > 				rcu_unexpedite_gp();
> > > > 			if (++expediting > 3)
> > > > 				expediting = -expediting;
> > > > 		} else if (!can_expedite) { /* Disabled during boot, recheck. */
> > > > 
> > > > If it's something you don't care about, then I don't care about too. I just
> > > > thought I'd report it in case it uncovered something worthwhile.
> > > 
> > > Well, my guess was wrong.  ;-)
> > > 
> > > This is instead rcutorture being surprised by the fact that RCU grace
> > > periods are expedited during the hibernate process.  I could fix this
> > > particular situation, but I bet that there are a number of others,
> > > including my guess above.
> > > 
> > > One approach would be to halt rcutorture testing just before hibernating
> > > and restart it just after resuming.
> > > 
> > > Thoughts?
> > 
> > {register, unregister}_pm_notifier() don't seem to be too hard to use.
> 
> That part is easy.  It would also be necessary to find all the affected
> warnings in rcutorture and suppress them, not only during this time,
> but also for some period of time afterwards.  Maybe this is the only one,
> but that would be surprising.  ;-)

Wouldn't be easier to just deinit/init()? ie: treat it like unload/load module.

But you'll lose some info then that maybe you'd like to keep across
suspend/resume cycles.

> 
> > But if it's not that simple, then it's not worthwhile I'd say. The report
> > lives in LKML as a documentation of this missing support :-P
> 
> It might at some point be necessary for rcutorture to handle suspends
> and hibernates in midstream, and yes, it could be done, but first I need
> to see some reason why it provides significant help.

Sounds reasonable to me. I agree my use case isn't sensible in general. It just
happened because I was testing an operation that affected both hibernation and
rcutorture test and I tend to compile my kernels with everything built-in.

Thanks

--
Qais Yousef