All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
To: Don Zickus <dzickus@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Crashes in perf_event_ctx_lock_nested
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 13:12:08 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171031201208.GA23413@roeck-us.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171031185059.2yl4qrxvrqqzra3d@redhat.com>

On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 02:50:59PM -0400, Don Zickus wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 10:16:22AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 02:48:50PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 03:45:12PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > > I added some logging and a long msleep() in hardlockup_detector_perf_cleanup().
> > > > Here is the result:
> > > > 
> > > > [    0.274361] NMI watchdog: ############ hardlockup_detector_perf_init
> > > > [    0.274915] NMI watchdog: ############ hardlockup_detector_event_create(0)
> > > > [    0.277049] NMI watchdog: ############ hardlockup_detector_perf_cleanup
> > > > [    0.277593] NMI watchdog: ############ hardlockup_detector_perf_enable(0)
> > > > [    0.278027] NMI watchdog: ############ hardlockup_detector_event_create(0)
> > > > [    1.312044] NMI watchdog: ############ hardlockup_detector_perf_cleanup done
> > > > [    1.385122] NMI watchdog: ############ hardlockup_detector_perf_enable(1)
> > > > [    1.386028] NMI watchdog: ############ hardlockup_detector_event_create(1)
> > > > [    1.466102] NMI watchdog: ############ hardlockup_detector_perf_enable(2)
> > > > [    1.475536] NMI watchdog: ############ hardlockup_detector_event_create(2)
> > > > [    1.535099] NMI watchdog: ############ hardlockup_detector_perf_enable(3)
> > > > [    1.535101] NMI watchdog: ############ hardlockup_detector_event_create(3)
> > > 
> > > > [    7.222816] NMI watchdog: ############ hardlockup_detector_perf_disable(0)
> > > > [    7.230567] NMI watchdog: ############ hardlockup_detector_perf_disable(1)
> > > > [    7.243138] NMI watchdog: ############ hardlockup_detector_perf_disable(2)
> > > > [    7.250966] NMI watchdog: ############ hardlockup_detector_perf_disable(3)
> > > > [    7.258826] NMI watchdog: ############ hardlockup_detector_perf_enable(1)
> > > > [    7.258827] NMI watchdog: ############ hardlockup_detector_perf_cleanup
> > > > [    7.258831] NMI watchdog: ############ hardlockup_detector_perf_enable(2)
> > > > [    7.258833] NMI watchdog: ############ hardlockup_detector_perf_enable(0)
> > > > [    7.258834] NMI watchdog: ############ hardlockup_detector_event_create(2)
> > > > [    7.258835] NMI watchdog: ############ hardlockup_detector_event_create(0)
> > > > [    7.260169] NMI watchdog: ############ hardlockup_detector_perf_enable(3)
> > > > [    7.260170] NMI watchdog: ############ hardlockup_detector_event_create(3)
> > > > [    7.494251] NMI watchdog: ############ hardlockup_detector_event_create(1)
> > > > [    8.287135] NMI watchdog: ############ hardlockup_detector_perf_cleanup done
> > > > 
> > > > Looks like there are a number of problems: hardlockup_detector_event_create()
> > > > creates the event data structure even if it is already created, 
> > > 
> > > Right, that does look dodgy. And on its own should be fairly straight
> > > forward to cure. But I'd like to understand the rest of it first.
> > > 
> > > > and hardlockup_detector_perf_cleanup() runs unprotected and in
> > > > parallel to the enable/create functions.
> > > 
> > > Well, looking at the code, cpu_maps_update_begin() aka.
> > > cpu_add_remove_lock is serializing cpu_up() and cpu_down() and _should_
> > > thereby also serialize cleanup vs the smp_hotplug_thread operations.
> > > 
> > > Your trace does indeed indicate this is not the case, but I cannot, from
> > > the code, see how this could happen.
> > > 
> > > Could you use trace_printk() instead and boot with
> > > "trace_options=stacktrace" ?
> > > 
> > Attached. Let me know if you need more information. Note this is with
> > msleep(1000) in the cleanup function to avoid the crash.
> > 
> > > > ALso, the following message is seen twice.
> > > > 
> > > > [    0.278758] NMI watchdog: Enabled. Permanently consumes one hw-PMU counter.
> > > > [    7.258838] NMI watchdog: Enabled. Permanently consumes one hw-PMU counter.
> > > > 
> > > > I don't offer a proposed patch since I have no idea how to best solve the
> > > > problem.
> > > > 
> > > > Also, is the repeated enable/disable/cleanup as part of the normal boot
> > > > really necessary ?
> > > 
> > > That's weird, I don't see that on my machines. We very much only bring
> > > up the CPUs _once_. Also note they're 7s apart. Did you do something
> > > funny like resume-from-disk or so?
> > 
> > No, just whatever Chrome OS does when it starts the kernel. The hardware
> > used in this test is a Google Pixelbook, though we have also seen the problem
> > with other Chromebooks.
> 
> Is Chrome OS, changing the default timeout from 10s to something else?
> That would explain it as a script is executed late in the boot cycle and
> explain the quick restart.
> 

Correct, Chrome OS changes the timeout from 10 to 5 seconds.

A little experiment suggests that the problem can be triggered by updating
/proc/sys/kernel/watchdog_thresh. hardlockup_detector_perf_enable() is
called while hardlockup_detector_perf_cleanup() is running.

Guenter

  reply	other threads:[~2017-10-31 20:12 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-10-30 22:45 Crashes in perf_event_ctx_lock_nested Guenter Roeck
2017-10-31 13:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-10-31 17:16   ` Guenter Roeck
2017-10-31 18:50     ` Don Zickus
2017-10-31 20:12       ` Guenter Roeck [this message]
2017-10-31 20:23         ` Don Zickus
2017-10-31 21:32   ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-10-31 22:11     ` Guenter Roeck
2017-11-01 18:11       ` Don Zickus
2017-11-01 18:34         ` Guenter Roeck
2017-11-01 19:46         ` [tip:core/urgent] watchdog/hardlockup/perf: Use atomics to track in-use cpu counter tip-bot for Don Zickus
2017-11-01 20:28         ` tip-bot for Don Zickus
2017-11-01 18:22       ` Crashes in perf_event_ctx_lock_nested Thomas Gleixner
2017-11-01  8:14     ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-11-01  8:26       ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-11-01 19:46     ` [tip:core/urgent] watchdog/harclockup/perf: Revert a33d44843d45 ("watchdog/hardlockup/perf: Simplify deferred event destroy") tip-bot for Thomas Gleixner
2017-11-01 20:32       ` Guenter Roeck
2017-11-01 20:52         ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-11-01 20:27     ` tip-bot for Thomas Gleixner
2017-10-31 18:48 ` Crashes in perf_event_ctx_lock_nested Don Zickus

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=20171031201208.GA23413@roeck-us.net \
    --to=linux@roeck-us.net \
    --cc=dzickus@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    /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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.