Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Mon, 24 Jul 2023 09:00:40 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To:     Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org,
        rcu@vger.kernel.org, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [BUG] Re: Linux 6.4.4
Message-ID: <4b231ce5-7bb8-4abf-9c40-04aa676d1e45@paulmck-laptop>
Reply-To: paulmck@kernel.org
References: <32aec6d1-bf25-7b47-8f31-7b6318d5238d@joelfernandes.org>
 <9b42cb38-8375-fc41-475a-2bd26c60a7b9@joelfernandes.org>
 <5dcf7117-cec7-4772-8aad-e100484a84dc@paulmck-laptop>
 <7bfde9f4-2bd6-7337-b9ca-94a9253d847f@joelfernandes.org>
 <ad82995c-061e-4f97-a972-c13a85ad0b72@paulmck-laptop>
 <a7bcbcf2-9b34-4326-822f-e1f2aa5c5668@joelfernandes.org>
 <ebde8612-95de-4eaf-aa56-34e9b3a3fa86@paulmck-laptop>
 <20230724003257.GA60074@google.com>
 <381862e5-153c-4641-a60e-8175acae971d@paulmck-laptop>
 <CAEXW_YQsP_j9ZBAYKGk0mBfa3x-RikMoWE01Z6q1GXkLug2xoQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CAEXW_YQsP_j9ZBAYKGk0mBfa3x-RikMoWE01Z6q1GXkLug2xoQ@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 09:36:02AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 23, 2023 at 11:35 PM Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 12:32:57AM +0000, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jul 23, 2023 at 10:19:27AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Jul 23, 2023 at 10:50:26AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 7/22/23 13:27, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > [..]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > OK, if this kernel is non-preemptible, you are not running TREE03,
> > > > > > correct?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Next plan of action is to get sched_waking stack traces since I have a
> > > > > >> very reliable repro of this now.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Too much fun!  ;-)
> > > > >
> > > > > For TREE07 issue, it is actually the schedule_timeout_interruptible(1)
> > > > > in stutter_wait() that is beating up the CPU0 for 4 seconds.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is very similar to the issue I fixed in New year in d52d3a2bf408
> > > > > ("torture: Fix hang during kthread shutdown phase")
> > > >
> > > > Agreed, if there are enough kthreads, and all the kthreads are on a
> > > > single CPU, this could consume that CPU.
> > > >
> > > > > Adding a cond_resched() there also did not help.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think the issue is the stutter thread fails to move spt forward
> > > > > because it does not get CPU time. But spt == 1 should be very brief
> > > > > AFAIU. I was wondering if we could set that to RT.
> > > >
> > > > Or just use a single hrtimer-based wait for each kthread?
> > >
> > > [Joel]
> > > Yes this might be better, but there's still the issue that spt may not be set
> > > back to 0 in some future release where the thread gets starved.
> >
> > But if each thread knows the absolute time at which the current stutter
> > period is supposed to end, there should not be any need for the spt
> > variable, correct?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> > > > > But also maybe the following will cure it like it did for the shutdown
> > > > > issue, giving the stutter thread just enough CPU time to move spt forward.
> > > > >
> > > > > Now I am trying the following and will let it run while I go do other
> > > > > family related things. ;)
> > > >
> > > > Good point, if this avoids the problem, that gives a strong indication
> > > > that your hypothesis on the root cause is correct.
> > >
> > > [Joel]
> > > And the TREE07 issue is gone with that change!
> [...]
> > > Let me know what you think, thanks!
> >
> > If we can make the stutter kthread set an absolute time for the current
> > stutter period to end, then we should be able to simplify the code quite
> > a bit and get rid of the CPU consumption entirely.  (Give or take the
> > possible need for a given thread to check whether it was erroneously
> > awakened early.)
> >
> > But what specifically did you have in mind?
> 
> I was thinking of a 2 counter approach storing the absolute time. Use
> an alternative counter for different stuttering sessions. But yes,
> generally I agree with the absolute time idea. What do you think Paul?
> 
> Do we want to just do  the simpler schedule_timeout at HZ / 20 to keep stable
> green, and do the absolute-time approach for mainline? That might be better
> from a process PoV. But I think stable requires patches to be upstream. Greg?
> 
> I will try to send out patches this week to discuss this, thanks,

Heh!!!

Me, I was just thinking of mainline.  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul