Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:2 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:2;
Date:   Wed, 13 Sep 2023 15:22:51 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@meta.com,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
        Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH,RFC] smp,csd: throw an error if a CSD lock is stuck for
 too long
Message-ID: <20230913132251.GE22758@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20230821160409.663b8ba9@imladris.surriel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230821160409.663b8ba9@imladris.surriel.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 04:04:09PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> The CSD lock seems to get stuck in 2 "modes". When it gets stuck
> temporarily, it usually gets released in a few seconds, and sometimes
> up to one or two minutes.
> 
> If the CSD lock stays stuck for more than several minutes, it never
> seems to get unstuck, and gradually more and more things in the system
> end up also getting stuck.
> 
> In the latter case, we should just give up, so the system can dump out
> a little more information about what went wrong, and, with panic_on_oops
> and a kdump kernel loaded, dump a whole bunch more information about
> what might have gone wrong.
> 
> Question: should this have its own panic_on_ipistall switch in
> /proc/sys/kernel, or maybe piggyback on panic_on_oops in a different
> way than via BUG_ON?
> 
> Signed-off-by: Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>
> ---
>  kernel/smp.c | 11 ++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/smp.c b/kernel/smp.c
> index 385179dae360..8b808bff15e6 100644
> --- a/kernel/smp.c
> +++ b/kernel/smp.c
> @@ -228,6 +228,7 @@ static bool csd_lock_wait_toolong(struct __call_single_data *csd, u64 ts0, u64 *
>  	}
>  
>  	ts2 = sched_clock();
> +	/* How long since we last checked for a stuck CSD lock.*/
>  	ts_delta = ts2 - *ts1;
>  	if (likely(ts_delta <= csd_lock_timeout_ns || csd_lock_timeout_ns == 0))
>  		return false;
> @@ -241,9 +242,17 @@ static bool csd_lock_wait_toolong(struct __call_single_data *csd, u64 ts0, u64 *
>  	else
>  		cpux = cpu;
>  	cpu_cur_csd = smp_load_acquire(&per_cpu(cur_csd, cpux)); /* Before func and info. */
> +	/* How long since this CSD lock was stuck. */
> +	ts_delta = ts2 - ts0;
>  	pr_alert("csd: %s non-responsive CSD lock (#%d) on CPU#%d, waiting %llu ns for CPU#%02d %pS(%ps).\n",
> -		 firsttime ? "Detected" : "Continued", *bug_id, raw_smp_processor_id(), ts2 - ts0,
> +		 firsttime ? "Detected" : "Continued", *bug_id, raw_smp_processor_id(), ts_delta,
>  		 cpu, csd->func, csd->info);
> +	/*
> +	 * If the CSD lock is still stuck after 5 minutes, it is unlikely
> +	 * to become unstuck. Use a signed comparison to avoid triggering
> +	 * on underflows when the TSC is out of sync between sockets.
> +	 */
> +	BUG_ON((s64)ts_delta > 300000000000LL);
>  	if (cpu_cur_csd && csd != cpu_cur_csd) {
>  		pr_alert("\tcsd: CSD lock (#%d) handling prior %pS(%ps) request.\n",
>  			 *bug_id, READ_ONCE(per_cpu(cur_csd_func, cpux)),

How are you guys still seeing this? I thought the KVM APIC thing was
fixed a while ago?