Re: [PATCH 0/4] sched/idle: Fix missing need_resched() checks after rcu_idle_enter()

From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	Fabio Estevam <festevam@gmail.com>,
	stable@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
	Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@pengutronix.de>,
	NXP Linux Team <linux-imx@nxp.com>,
	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>,
	Shawn Guo <shawnguo@kernel.org>,
	Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>,
	Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] sched/idle: Fix missing need_resched() checks after rcu_idle_enter()
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2021 08:05:11 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210101160511.GB12032@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4de33f1a-890b-4d29-20e8-a1163b9c1bf7@intel.com>

On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 05:19:51PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On 12/22/2020 2:37 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > With Paul, we've been thinking that the idle loop wasn't twisted enough
> > yet to deserve 2020.
> > 
> > rcutorture, after some recent parameter changes, has been complaining
> > about a hung task.
> > 
> > It appears that rcu_idle_enter() may wake up a NOCB kthread but this
> > happens after the last generic need_resched() check. Some cpuidle drivers
> > fix it by chance but many others don't.
> > 
> > Here is a proposed bunch of fixes. I will need to also fix the
> > rcu_user_enter() case, likely using irq_work, since nohz_full requires
> > irq work to support self IPI.
> > 
> > Also more generally, this raise the question of local task wake_up()
> > under disabled interrupts. When a wake up occurs in a preempt disabled
> > section, it gets handled by the outer preempt_enable() call. There is no
> > similar mechanism when a wake up occurs with interrupts disabled. I guess
> > it is assumed to be handled, at worst, in the next tick. But a local irq
> > work would provide instant preemption once IRQs are re-enabled. Of course
> > this would only make sense in CONFIG_PREEMPTION, and when the tick is
> > disabled...
> > 
> > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/frederic/linux-dynticks.git
> > 	sched/idle
> > 
> > HEAD: f2fa6e4a070c1535b9edc9ee097167fd2b15d235
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 	Frederic
> > ---
> > 
> > Frederic Weisbecker (4):
> >        sched/idle: Fix missing need_resched() check after rcu_idle_enter()
> >        cpuidle: Fix missing need_resched() check after rcu_idle_enter()
> >        ARM: imx6q: Fix missing need_resched() check after rcu_idle_enter()
> >        ACPI: processor: Fix missing need_resched() check after rcu_idle_enter()
> > 
> > 
> >   arch/arm/mach-imx/cpuidle-imx6q.c |  7 ++++++-
> >   drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c     | 10 ++++++++--
> >   drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c         | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
> >   kernel/sched/idle.c               | 18 ++++++++++++------
> >   4 files changed, 51 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> 
> Please feel free to add
> 
> Reviewed-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> 
> to all patches in the series.

I would guess that they will take some other path to mainline, but I have
queued these to cut down on rcutorture's whining.  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul