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;
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To:     peterz@infradead.org,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>
Cc:     Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>,
        Kurt Kanzenbach <kurt.kanzenbach@linutronix.de>,
        Alison Wang <alison.wang@nxp.com>, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
        will@kernel.org, paulmck@kernel.org, mw@semihalf.com,
        leoyang.li@nxp.com, vladimir.oltean@nxp.com,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Anna-Maria Gleixner <anna-maria@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] arm64: defconfig: Disable fine-grained task level IRQ time accounting
In-Reply-To: <20200805153120.GU2674@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <87mu3ho48v.fsf@kurt> <20200730082228.r24zgdeiofvwxijm@skbuf> <873654m9zi.fsf@kurt> <87lfiwm2bj.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> <20200803114112.mrcuupz4ir5uqlp6@skbuf> <87d047n4oh.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> <jhjh7tjivew.mognet@arm.com> <875z9zmt4i.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> <20200805134002.GQ2674@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <jhja6z9i4bi.mognet@arm.com> <20200805153120.GU2674@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Thu, 06 Aug 2020 11:41:06 +0200
Message-ID: <874kpgi025.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

peterz@infradead.org writes:
> On Wed, Aug 05, 2020 at 02:56:49PM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote:
>
>> I've been tempted to say the test case is a bit bogus, but am not familiar
>> enough with the RT throttling details to stand that ground. That said, from
>> both looking at the execution and the stress-ng source code, it seems to
>> unconditionally spawn 32 FIFO-50 tasks (there's even an option to make
>> these FIFO-99!!!), which is quite a crowd on monoCPU systems.
>
> Oh, so it's a case of: we do stupid without tuning and the system falls
> over. I can live with that.

It's not a question of whether you can live with that behaviour for a
particular silly test case.

The same happens with a single RT runaway task with enough interrupt
load on a UP machine. Just validated that. And that has nothing to do
with a silly test case. Sporadic runaways due to a bug in a once per
week code path simply can happen and having the safety net working
depending on a config option selected or not is just wrong.

Thanks,

        tglx