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:   Wed, 6 Sep 2023 06:08:16 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To:     Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com,
        peterz@infradead.org, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
        vincent.guittot@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
        rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de,
        bristot@redhat.com
Subject: Re: "Dying CPU not properly vacated" splat
Message-ID: <c06ea3f3-4f07-42fb-9ad1-a227e9534bb1@paulmck-laptop>
Reply-To: paulmck@kernel.org
References: <xhsmh4k2h9m26.mognet@vschneid.remote.csb>
 <20220425173320.GX4285@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
 <xhsmh1qxkakof.mognet@vschneid.remote.csb>
 <20220426000328.GY4285@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
 <xhsmhy1zr99zt.mognet@vschneid.remote.csb>
 <20220426162445.GG4285@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
 <20220622195856.GA1694215@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
 <xhsmhzghof1eo.mognet@vschneid.remote.csb>
 <20220705172342.GB1790663@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
 <xhsmhsfmfc7s5.mognet@vschneid.remote.csb>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <xhsmhsfmfc7s5.mognet@vschneid.remote.csb>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Aug 02, 2022 at 10:30:02AM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> On 05/07/22 10:23, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > The second of these occurred near shutdown, but the first was quite some
> > time before shutdown.  In case that makes a difference.
> >
> > I have not seen this since.
> >
> > Any other diagnostics I should add?
> >
> 
> Sorry, I let this get buried to the bottom of my inbox :(
> 
> I've had another look at rcutorture.c but just like for
> rcu_torture_reader(), I don't see any obvious culprit (no
> kthread_set_per_cpu() usage)).
> 
> One thing I think would help is a scheduling trace (say sched_switch,
> sched_wakeup and cpuhp*, combined with ftrace_dump_on_oops + panic_on_warn
> ?) - that should at least tell us if the issue is in the wakeup placement
> (if the task gets placed on a dying CPU *after* CPUHP_AP_ACTIVE), or in the
> balance_push() mechanism (the task was *already* on the CPU when it started
> dying and never moved away).
> 
> Neither make sense to me, but it has to be somewhere in there...

And given that it has been more than a year since I have seen this,
I am considering it to be fixed, whether purposefully or accidentally.

							Thanx, Paul