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:   Fri, 25 Aug 2023 18:31:56 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To:     Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
        Neeraj Upadhyay <quic_neeraju@quicinc.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
        Zqiang <qiang.zhang1211@gmail.com>, rcu@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcutorture: Replace schedule_timeout*() 1 jiffie waits
 with HZ/20
Message-ID: <20f4de24-d7f1-4a10-bb32-b9d39773c9a6@paulmck-laptop>
Reply-To: paulmck@kernel.org
References: <20230816204913.450457-1-joel@joelfernandes.org>
 <530be59f-96a9-4b2b-8be3-af837d7cbe3a@paulmck-laptop>
 <20230825025538.GF4008060@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230825025538.GF4008060@google.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 02:55:38AM +0000, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 02:07:55PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 08:49:12PM +0000, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > > In the past, we see that spinning on schedule_timeout* with a wait of 1
> > > jiffie can hang the kernel. See d52d3a2bf408 ("torture: Fix hang during
> > > kthread shutdown phase").
> > > 
> > > Recently again it showed up in torture's stutter code as well. The behavior is
> > > the the function may instantly return and never go to sleep preempting whatever
> > > was running under it.
> > > 
> > > To prevent future issues, apply the same fix mentioned in the above
> > > commit d52d3a2bf408 to more places.
> > > 
> > > I took care to only apply it to places where I thought it made sense.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org>
> > 
> > Hearing no objections, I applied this for further review and testing.
> > 
> > In the future, should some of these become hrtimers?
> 
> Yes they certainly could be but we don't need these ones to be high
> resolution AFAICS and the jiffie granularity should be good.

True, but wouldn't avoiding the repeated wakeups, even at the lower
frequency, be of some value?

							Thanx, Paul