From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
jiangshanlai@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: Workqueues splat due to ending up on wrong CPU
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2019 11:32:13 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191205103213.GB2871@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191205102928.GG2810@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 11:29:28AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 12:11:50PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> > And the good news is that I didn't see the workqueue splat, though my
> > best guess is that I had about a 13% chance of not seeing it due to
> > random chance (and I am currently trying an idea that I hope will make
> > it more probable). But I did get a couple of new complaints about RCU
> > being used illegally from an offline CPU. Splats below.
>
> Shiny!
>
> > Your patch did rearrange the CPU-online sequence, so let's see if I
> > can piece things together...
> >
> > RCU considers a CPU to be online at rcu_cpu_starting() time. This is
> > called from notify_cpu_starting(), which is called from the arch-specific
> > CPU-bringup code. Any RCU readers before rcu_cpu_starting() will trigger
> > the warning I am seeing.
>
> Right.
>
> > The original location of the stop_machine_unpark() was in
> > bringup_wait_for_ap(), which is called from bringup_cpu(), which is in
> > the CPUHP_BRINGUP_CPU entry of cpuhp_hp_states[]. Which, if I am not
> > too confused, is invoked by some CPU other than the to-be-incoming CPU.
>
> Correct.
>
> > The new location of the stop_machine_unpark() is in cpuhp_online_idle(),
> > which is called from cpu_startup_entry(), which is invoked from
> > the arch-specific bringup code that runs on the incoming CPU.
>
> The new place is the final piece of bringup, it is right before where
> the freshly woken CPU will drop into the idle loop and start scheduling
> (for the first time).
>
> > Which
> > is the same code that invokes notify_cpu_starting(), so we need
> > notify_cpu_starting() to be invoked before cpu_startup_entry().
>
> Right, that is right before we run what used to be the CPU_STARTING
> notifiers. This is in fact (on x86) before the CPU is marked
> cpu_online(). It has to be before cpu_startup_entry(), before this is
> ran with IRQs disabled, while cpu_startup_entry() demands IRQs are
> enabled.
>
> > The order is not immediately obvious on IA64. But it looks like
> > everything else does it in the required order, so I am a bit confused
> > about this.
>
> That makes two of us, afaict we have RCU up and running when we get to
> the idle loop.
Or did we need rcutree_online_cpu() to have ran? Because that is ran
much later than this...
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-12-05 10:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-11-25 23:03 Workqueues splat due to ending up on wrong CPU Paul E. McKenney
2019-11-26 18:33 ` Tejun Heo
2019-11-26 22:05 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-11-27 15:50 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-11-28 16:18 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-11-29 15:58 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-12-02 1:55 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-12-02 20:13 ` Tejun Heo
2019-12-02 23:39 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-12-03 10:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-12-03 17:45 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-12-03 18:13 ` Tejun Heo
2019-12-03 9:55 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-12-03 10:06 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-12-03 15:42 ` Tejun Heo
2019-12-03 16:04 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-12-04 20:11 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-12-05 10:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-12-05 10:32 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2019-12-05 14:48 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-12-06 3:19 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-12-06 18:52 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-12-06 22:00 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-12-09 18:59 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-12-10 9:08 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-12-10 22:56 ` Paul E. McKenney
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=20191205103213.GB2871@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=jiangshanlai@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tj@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).