Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 21 Jul 2020 10:15:39 -0400
From:   Qian Cai <cai@lca.pw>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc:     linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm: silence soft lockups from unlock_page
Message-ID: <20200721141539.GA3696@lca.pw>
References: <20200721112529.GJ4061@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <664A07B6-DBCD-4520-84F1-241A4E7A339F@lca.pw>
 <20200721121752.GK4061@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20200721132343.GA4261@lca.pw>
 <20200721133835.GL4061@dhcp22.suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20200721133835.GL4061@dhcp22.suse.cz>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 03:38:35PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 21-07-20 09:23:44, Qian Cai wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 02:17:52PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Tue 21-07-20 07:44:07, Qian Cai wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > On Jul 21, 2020, at 7:25 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > Are these really important? I believe I can dig that out from the bug
> > > > > report but I didn't really consider that important enough.
> > > > 
> > > > Please dig them out. We have also been running those things on
> > > > “large” powerpc as well and never saw such soft-lockups. Those
> > > > details may give us some clues about the actual problem.
> > > 
> > > I strongly suspect this is not really relevant but just FYI this is
> > > 16Node, 11.9TB with 1536CPUs system.
> > 
> > Okay, we are now talking about the HPC special case. Just brain-storming some
> > ideas here.
> > 
> > 
> > 1) What about increase the soft-lockup threshold early at boot and restore
> > afterwards? As far as I can tell, those soft-lockups are just a few bursts of
> > things and then cure itself after the booting.
> 
> Is this really better option than silencing soft lockup from the code
> itself? What if the same access pattern happens later on?

It is better because it does not require a code change? Did your customers see
the similar soft-lockups after booting was done?