From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To: Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@linaro.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
kasan-dev <kasan-dev@googlegroups.com>,
rcu@vger.kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kfence: Avoid stalling work queue task without allocations
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2020 16:11:29 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201112001129.GD3249@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201111202153.GT517454@elver.google.com>
On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 09:21:53PM +0100, Marco Elver wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 11:21AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> [...]
> > > > rcu: Don't invoke try_invoke_on_locked_down_task() with irqs disabled
> > >
> > > Sadly, no, next-20201110 already included that one, and that's what I
> > > tested and got me all those warnings above.
> >
> > Hey, I had to ask! The only uncertainty I seee is the acquisition of
> > the lock in rcu_iw_handler(), for which I add a lockdep check in the
> > (untested) patch below. The other thing I could do is sprinkle such
> > checks through the stall-warning code on the assumption that something
> > RCU is calling is enabling interrupts.
> >
> > Other thoughts?
> >
> > Thanx, Paul
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_stall.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_stall.h
> > index 70d48c5..3d67650 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_stall.h
> > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_stall.h
> > @@ -189,6 +189,7 @@ static void rcu_iw_handler(struct irq_work *iwp)
> >
> > rdp = container_of(iwp, struct rcu_data, rcu_iw);
> > rnp = rdp->mynode;
> > + lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled();
> > raw_spin_lock_rcu_node(rnp);
> > if (!WARN_ON_ONCE(!rdp->rcu_iw_pending)) {
> > rdp->rcu_iw_gp_seq = rnp->gp_seq;
>
> This assert didn't fire yet, I just get more of the below. I'll keep
> rerunning, but am not too hopeful...
Is bisection a possibility?
Failing that, please see the updated patch below. This adds a few more
calls to lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled(), but perhaps more helpfully dumps
the current stack of the CPU that the RCU grace-period kthread wants to
run on in the case where this kthread has been starved of CPU.
Thanx, Paul
------------------------------------------------------------------------
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_stall.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_stall.h
index 70d48c5..d203ea0 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree_stall.h
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_stall.h
@@ -189,6 +189,7 @@ static void rcu_iw_handler(struct irq_work *iwp)
rdp = container_of(iwp, struct rcu_data, rcu_iw);
rnp = rdp->mynode;
+ lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled();
raw_spin_lock_rcu_node(rnp);
if (!WARN_ON_ONCE(!rdp->rcu_iw_pending)) {
rdp->rcu_iw_gp_seq = rnp->gp_seq;
@@ -449,21 +450,32 @@ static void print_cpu_stall_info(int cpu)
/* Complain about starvation of grace-period kthread. */
static void rcu_check_gp_kthread_starvation(void)
{
+ int cpu;
struct task_struct *gpk = rcu_state.gp_kthread;
unsigned long j;
if (rcu_is_gp_kthread_starving(&j)) {
+ cpu = gpk ? task_cpu(gpk) : -1;
pr_err("%s kthread starved for %ld jiffies! g%ld f%#x %s(%d) ->state=%#lx ->cpu=%d\n",
rcu_state.name, j,
(long)rcu_seq_current(&rcu_state.gp_seq),
data_race(rcu_state.gp_flags),
gp_state_getname(rcu_state.gp_state), rcu_state.gp_state,
- gpk ? gpk->state : ~0, gpk ? task_cpu(gpk) : -1);
+ gpk ? gpk->state : ~0, cpu);
if (gpk) {
pr_err("\tUnless %s kthread gets sufficient CPU time, OOM is now expected behavior.\n", rcu_state.name);
pr_err("RCU grace-period kthread stack dump:\n");
+ lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled();
sched_show_task(gpk);
+ lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled();
+ if (cpu >= 0) {
+ pr_err("Stack dump where RCU grace-period kthread last ran:\n");
+ if (!trigger_single_cpu_backtrace(cpu))
+ dump_cpu_task(cpu);
+ }
+ lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled();
wake_up_process(gpk);
+ lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled();
}
}
}
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-11-12 1:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 63+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-11-10 13:53 [PATCH] kfence: Avoid stalling work queue task without allocations Marco Elver
2020-11-10 14:25 ` Dmitry Vyukov
2020-11-10 14:53 ` Marco Elver
2020-11-10 23:23 ` Anders Roxell
2020-11-11 8:29 ` Marco Elver
2020-11-11 13:38 ` Marco Elver
2020-11-11 18:05 ` Steven Rostedt
2020-11-11 18:23 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-11-11 18:34 ` Marco Elver
2020-11-11 19:21 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-11-11 20:21 ` Marco Elver
2020-11-12 0:11 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2020-11-12 12:49 ` Marco Elver
2020-11-12 16:14 ` Marco Elver
2020-11-12 17:54 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-11-12 18:12 ` Marco Elver
2020-11-12 20:00 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-11-13 11:06 ` Marco Elver
2020-11-13 17:20 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-11-13 17:57 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-11-17 10:52 ` Marco Elver
2020-11-17 18:29 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-11-18 22:56 ` Marco Elver
2020-11-18 23:38 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-11-19 12:53 ` Marco Elver
2020-11-19 15:14 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-11-19 17:02 ` Marco Elver
2020-11-19 18:48 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-11-19 19:38 ` linux-next: stall warnings and deadlock on Arm64 (was: [PATCH] kfence: Avoid stalling...) Marco Elver
2020-11-19 21:35 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-11-19 22:53 ` Will Deacon
2020-11-20 10:30 ` Mark Rutland
2020-11-20 14:03 ` Marco Elver
2020-11-23 19:32 ` Mark Rutland
2020-11-24 14:03 ` Marco Elver
2020-11-24 15:01 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-11-24 19:43 ` Mark Rutland
2020-11-24 20:32 ` Steven Rostedt
2020-11-24 19:30 ` Mark Rutland
2020-11-25 9:45 ` Marco Elver
2020-11-25 10:28 ` Mark Rutland
2020-11-20 14:19 ` Marco Elver
2020-11-20 14:39 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-11-20 15:22 ` Mark Rutland
2020-11-20 17:38 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-11-20 18:02 ` Mark Rutland
2020-11-20 18:57 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-11-20 15:26 ` Steven Rostedt
2020-11-20 18:17 ` Marco Elver
2020-11-20 18:57 ` Steven Rostedt
2020-11-20 19:16 ` Steven Rostedt
2020-11-20 19:22 ` Marco Elver
2020-11-20 19:27 ` [PATCH] kfence: Avoid stalling work queue task without allocations Steven Rostedt
2020-11-23 15:27 ` Marco Elver
2020-11-23 16:28 ` Steven Rostedt
2020-11-23 16:36 ` Steven Rostedt
2020-11-23 18:53 ` Marco Elver
2020-11-23 18:42 ` Steven Rostedt
2020-11-24 2:59 ` Boqun Feng
2020-11-24 3:44 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-11-11 18:21 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-11-11 15:01 ` Anders Roxell
2020-11-11 15:22 ` Marco Elver
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20201112001129.GD3249@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72 \
--to=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=anders.roxell@linaro.org \
--cc=dvyukov@google.com \
--cc=elver@google.com \
--cc=glider@google.com \
--cc=jannh@google.com \
--cc=kasan-dev@googlegroups.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rcu@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).