From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel/hung_task.c: Break RCU locks based on jiffies.
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 13:01:26 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181214210126.GX4170@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181214123111.266cae10f71ea6b277d634c6@linux-foundation.org>
On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 12:31:11PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 00:17:38 +0900 Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> wrote:
>
> > check_hung_uninterruptible_tasks() is currently calling rcu_lock_break()
> > for every 1024 threads. But check_hung_task() is very slow if printk()
> > was called, and is very fast otherwise. If many threads within some 1024
> > threads called printk(), the RCU grace period might be extended enough
> > to trigger RCU stall warnings. Therefore, calling rcu_lock_break() for
> > every some fixed jiffies will be safer.
> >
> > --- a/kernel/hung_task.c
> > +++ b/kernel/hung_task.c
> > @@ -34,7 +34,7 @@
> > * is disabled during the critical section. It also controls the size of
> > * the RCU grace period. So it needs to be upper-bound.
> > */
> > -#define HUNG_TASK_BATCHING 1024
> > +#define HUNG_TASK_LOCK_BREAK (HZ / 10)
>
> This won't work correctly if rcu_cpu_stall_timeout is set to something
> stupidly small. Perhaps is would be better to make this code aware of
> the current rcu_cpu_stall_timeout setting?
Good point.
However, the reason that I wasn't worried because any settings of
rcu_cpu_stall_timeout less than 3 seconds are cheerfully bumped up to
3 seconds, so we have a safety factor of 30 as things stand.
I could export the minimum, though, if that would be helpful.
Thanx, Paul
prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-12-14 21:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-12-14 15:17 [PATCH] kernel/hung_task.c: Break RCU locks based on jiffies Tetsuo Handa
2018-12-14 15:58 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-12-14 20:31 ` Andrew Morton
2018-12-14 21:01 ` Paul E. McKenney [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=20181214210126.GX4170@linux.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dvyukov@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp \
--cc=pmladek@suse.com \
--cc=rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com \
--cc=sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com \
--cc=vkuznets@redhat.com \
/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).