From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
To: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Cc: Zhenhua Ma <mazhenhua@xiaomi.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Subject: Re: Lockups due to "locking/rwsem: Make handoff bit handling more consistent"
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2022 16:09:44 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220622150944.GG15453@techsingularity.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2c4084e3-9bd0-76ef-a11c-857de96a83e5@redhat.com>
On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 09:32:12PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 6/20/22 10:09, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 10:29:20AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> > > > The C file and shell script to run it are attached.
> > > >
> > > Thanks for the reproducer and I will try to reproduce it locally.
> > >
> > > It is a known issue that I have receive similar report from an Oracle
> > > engineer. That is the reason I posted commit 1ee326196c66 ("locking/rwsem:
> > > Always try to wake waiters in out_nolock path") that was merged in v5.19. I
> > > believe it helps but it may not be able to eliminate all possible race
> > > conditions. To make rwsem behave more like before commit d257cc8cb8d5
> > > ("locking/rwsem: Make handoff bit handling more consistent"), I posted a
> > > follow-up patch
> > >
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220427173124.1428050-1-longman@redhat.com/
> > >
> > > But it hasn't gotten review yet.
> > >
> > FWIW, the patch passed the test case when applied to both 5.18 and
> > 5.19-rc3.
>
> Thanks for running the test. Do you mean that both 5.18 and 5.19-rc3 fail
> the test and they pass only after applying the patch?
>
Yes.
> Anyway, I am not able to reproduce the failure in both 5.18 and 5.19-rc3.
> Perhaps it is due to the difference in the running environment, i.e. gcc,
> glibc, etc. What operating environment (SuSE version) do you use to
> reproduce the failure? I used RHEL8 which is the most convenient one for me.
>
It was reproduced on Leap 15.4 with a 2-socket machine with 40 cores
(SMT-2). The kernel built was based on the distribution config. gcc
version was based on 7.5.0.
> BTW, do you mind if I put down your name with a "Tested-by:" tag to the
> patch?
>
No problem.
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-06-22 15:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-06-17 13:43 Lockups due to "locking/rwsem: Make handoff bit handling more consistent" Mel Gorman
2022-06-17 14:29 ` Waiman Long
2022-06-20 14:09 ` Mel Gorman
2022-06-22 1:32 ` Waiman Long
2022-06-22 15:09 ` Mel Gorman [this message]
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=20220622150944.GG15453@techsingularity.net \
--to=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=mazhenhua@xiaomi.com \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=will@kernel.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).