linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [PATCH] softlockup: fix problem with long kernel pauses from kgdb
@ 2009-07-27 20:03 Jason Wessel
  2009-07-27 20:18 ` Peter Zijlstra
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Jason Wessel @ 2009-07-27 20:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Ingo Molnar; +Cc: lkml, Deng, Dongdong, peterz


Ingo,

Given that you are the maintainer of kernel/softlockup.c, I am seeking
advice as to how to properly fix this problem.

The short version of the problem is:

  * CONFIG_HAVE_UNSTABLE_SCHED_CLOCK=y
  * Attach to kgdb after boot
  * Wait for 90 seconds
  * Execute a continue in gdb
  * You receive a warning about softlockup

The patch that follows is a lengthy analysis on the issue, but the
question here is what is the right way to fix this?

It seems that a provision is required in order to get the clock synced
up prior to touching the watch dog.  It was not clear that it was a
good idea to unconditionally call the sched_clock_tick() from the
softlockup touch code.

Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
Jason.

----------
From: "Dongdong Deng" <Dongdong.Deng@windriver.com>
Subject: [PATCH] softlockup: add sched_clock_tick() to avoid kernel warning on kgdb resume

When CONFIG_HAVE_UNSTABLE_SCHED_CLOCK is set and the sched_clock()
was gets the time from hardware, such as from TSC, kgdb often
causes softlock warning messages on resuming or detaching from
a debug session.

Sequence of events in the problem case:

1) "cpu sched clock" and "hardware time" are at 100 seconds prior
to a call to kgdb_handle_exception()

2) Debugger waits in kgdb_handle_exception() for 80 seconds and on
   exit the following is called
    ...
    touch_softlockup_watchdog()
       --> __raw_get_cpu_var(touch_timestamp) = 0;

3) "cpu sched clock" = 100s (it didn't be updated, because the
   interrupt was disabled in kgdb) but the "hardware time" = 180s

4) The first timer interrupt after resuming from kgdb_handle_exception
   updates the watchdog from the "cpu sched clock"

update_process_times()
{
    ...
    run_local_timers()
          --> softlockup_tick()
              --> check (touch_timestamp == 0)
                (it is "YES" here, we have set "touch_timestamp = 0"
                at kgdb)
                --> __touch_softlockup_watchdog()
              ***(A)--> reset "touch_timestamp" to "get_timestamp()"
                     (Here, the "touch_timestamp" will still be set to
                      100s.)
    ...

    scheduler_tick()
      ***(B)--> sched_clock_tick()
               (update "cpu sched clock" to "hardware time" = 180s)
    ...
}

5) The Second timer interrupt handler appears to have a large jump and
   trips the softlockup warning.

update_process_times()
{
    ...
    run_local_timers()
        --> softlockup_tick()
           --> "cpu sched clock" - "touch_timestamp" = 180s-100s > 60s
           --> printk "soft lockup error messages"
    ...
}

note:
***(A) reset "touch_timestamp" to "get_timestamp(this_cpu)"

Why "touch_timestamp" will be 100s, not 180s ?

We enable "CONFIG_HAVE_UNSTABLE_SCHED_CLOCK",
so the call trace of get_timestamp() is:

get_timestamp(this_cpu)
      -->cpu_clock(this_cpu)
         -->sched_clock_cpu(this_cpu)
            -->__update_sched_clock(sched_clock_data, now)

22 static u64 __update_sched_clock(struct sched_clock_data *scd, u64 =
now)
23 {
24    s64 delta = now - scd->tick_raw;
25    u64 clock, min_clock, max_clock;
26
27    WARN_ON_ONCE(!irqs_disabled());
28
29    if (unlikely(delta < 0))
30        delta = 0;
31
32    clock = scd->tick_gtod + delta;
33
34    min_clock = wrap_max(scd->tick_gtod, scd->clock);
35    max_clock = wrap_max(scd->clock, scd->tick_gtod + TICK_NSEC);
36
37    clock = wrap_max(clock, min_clock);
38    clock = wrap_min(clock, max_clock);
39
40    scd->clock = clock;
41
42    return scd->clock;
43 }

Please pay attention to __update_sched_clock() function, it uses the
GTOD tick value to create a window to filter crazy "now" values.  So
if "now" values is too big for sched_clock_data, it will be ignored.

as the data of "step 3)",
"now" = sched_clock() = "hardware time" = 180s and
sched_clock_data = 100s.
180s is too big for 100s, it will be ignored.

That's why the touch_timestamp will be set to 100s, not 180s.

The fix is to simply invoke sched_clock_tick() to update "cpu sched
clock" on exit from kgdb_handle_exception.

Signed-off-by: Dongdong Deng <Dongdong.Deng@windriver.com>
Signed-off-by: Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@windriver.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: peterz@infradead.org

---
 kernel/softlockup.c |    3 +++
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)

--- a/kernel/softlockup.c
+++ b/kernel/softlockup.c
@@ -118,6 +118,9 @@ void softlockup_tick(void)
 	}
 
 	if (touch_timestamp == 0) {
+		/* If the time stamp was touched externally make sure the
+		 * scheduler tick is up to date as well */
+		sched_clock_tick();
 		__touch_softlockup_watchdog();
 		return;
 	}

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] softlockup: fix problem with long kernel pauses from kgdb
  2009-07-27 20:03 [PATCH] softlockup: fix problem with long kernel pauses from kgdb Jason Wessel
@ 2009-07-27 20:18 ` Peter Zijlstra
  2009-07-27 21:25   ` Jason Wessel
  2009-07-28 15:05   ` Jason Wessel
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Peter Zijlstra @ 2009-07-27 20:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jason Wessel; +Cc: Ingo Molnar, lkml, Deng, Dongdong

On Mon, 2009-07-27 at 15:03 -0500, Jason Wessel wrote:
> 
> The fix is to simply invoke sched_clock_tick() to update "cpu sched
> clock" on exit from kgdb_handle_exception.

Is that a regular IRQ context, or is that NMI context?

> Signed-off-by: Dongdong Deng <Dongdong.Deng@windriver.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@windriver.com>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
> Cc: peterz@infradead.org
> ---
>  kernel/softlockup.c |    3 +++
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> 
> --- a/kernel/softlockup.c
> +++ b/kernel/softlockup.c
> @@ -118,6 +118,9 @@ void softlockup_tick(void)
>         }
>  
>         if (touch_timestamp == 0) {
> +               /* If the time stamp was touched externally make sure the
> +                * scheduler tick is up to date as well */
> +               sched_clock_tick();
>                 __touch_softlockup_watchdog();
>                 return;
>         }
> 

Aside from the funny comment style (please fix) the fix does look
sensible.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] softlockup: fix problem with long kernel pauses from kgdb
  2009-07-27 20:18 ` Peter Zijlstra
@ 2009-07-27 21:25   ` Jason Wessel
  2009-07-28 15:05   ` Jason Wessel
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Jason Wessel @ 2009-07-27 21:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Peter Zijlstra; +Cc: Ingo Molnar, lkml, Deng, Dongdong

Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-07-27 at 15:03 -0500, Jason Wessel wrote:
>   
>> The fix is to simply invoke sched_clock_tick() to update "cpu sched
>> clock" on exit from kgdb_handle_exception.
>>     
>
> Is that a regular IRQ context, or is that NMI context?
>
>   

The patch text there is incorrect (which I can fix), because there were
3 other versions of this particular patch.  The version of this patch
that tried to use sched_clock_tick() from the exception context hung the
system because there was lock contention for CPUs that were not in the
running state.

In this version, the sched_clock_tick() added in the softlockup_tick(),
which did not result in a hard hang.  I am pretty sure that
softlockup_tick() runs as a part of the timer interrupt processing from
run_local_timers(), so there was no further need to turn off the interrupts.

Jason.

>> Signed-off-by: Dongdong Deng <Dongdong.Deng@windriver.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@windriver.com>
>> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
>> Cc: peterz@infradead.org
>> ---
>>  kernel/softlockup.c |    3 +++
>>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>>
>> --- a/kernel/softlockup.c
>> +++ b/kernel/softlockup.c
>> @@ -118,6 +118,9 @@ void softlockup_tick(void)
>>         }
>>  
>>         if (touch_timestamp == 0) {
>> +               /* If the time stamp was touched externally make sure the
>> +                * scheduler tick is up to date as well */
>> +               sched_clock_tick();
>>                 __touch_softlockup_watchdog();
>>                 return;
>>         }
>>
>>     
>
> Aside from the funny comment style (please fix) the fix does look
> sensible.
>   

No problem.

Thanks,
Jason.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] softlockup: fix problem with long kernel pauses from kgdb
  2009-07-27 20:18 ` Peter Zijlstra
  2009-07-27 21:25   ` Jason Wessel
@ 2009-07-28 15:05   ` Jason Wessel
  2009-08-04 14:16     ` Ingo Molnar
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Jason Wessel @ 2009-07-28 15:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Peter Zijlstra; +Cc: Ingo Molnar, lkml, Deng, Dongdong

Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-07-27 at 15:03 -0500, Jason Wessel wrote:
>> The fix is to simply invoke sched_clock_tick() to update "cpu sched
>> clock" on exit from kgdb_handle_exception.
> 
> Is that a regular IRQ context, or is that NMI context?
> 
>> Signed-off-by: Dongdong Deng <Dongdong.Deng@windriver.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@windriver.com>
>> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
>> Cc: peterz@infradead.org
>> ---
>>  kernel/softlockup.c |    3 +++
>>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>>
>> --- a/kernel/softlockup.c
>> +++ b/kernel/softlockup.c
>> @@ -118,6 +118,9 @@ void softlockup_tick(void)
>>         }
>>  
>>         if (touch_timestamp == 0) {
>> +               /* If the time stamp was touched externally make sure the
>> +                * scheduler tick is up to date as well */
>> +               sched_clock_tick();
>>                 __touch_softlockup_watchdog();
>>                 return;
>>         }
>>
> 
> Aside from the funny comment style (please fix) the fix does look
> sensible.

It turns out that further testing of this patch shows a regression in
the ability to detect certain lockups.  It is a direct result of the
way the scheduling code makes use of the touch_softlockup_watchdog().
With the above proposed patch the tick was getting updated after a
resume, but was also getting updated with the run_timers(), and if
that happened before the softlockup tick, no softlockup would get
reported (note that I was using some test code to induce softlockups).

The patch below is a bit more invasive but solves the problem by
allowing kgdb to request that the sched cpu clock is updated only when
returning from a state where we know we need to force the update.

Would this change be an acceptable solution to allow kgdb to
peacefully exist with the softlockup code?

Thanks,
Jason.


-----
From: Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@windriver.com>
Subject: [PATCH] softlockup: add sched_clock_tick() to avoid kernel warning on kgdb resume

When CONFIG_HAVE_UNSTABLE_SCHED_CLOCK is set sched_clock() gets the
time from hardware, such as from TSC.  In this configuration kgdb will
report a softlock warning messages on resuming or detaching from a
debug session.

Sequence of events in the problem case:

1) "cpu sched clock" and "hardware time" are at 100 sec prior
   to a call to kgdb_handle_exception()

2) Debugger waits in kgdb_handle_exception() for 80 sec and on exit
   the following is called ...  touch_softlockup_watchdog() -->
   __raw_get_cpu_var(touch_timestamp) = 0;

3) "cpu sched clock" = 100s (it was not updated, because the interrupt
   was disabled in kgdb) but the "hardware time" = 180 sec

4) The first timer interrupt after resuming from kgdb_handle_exception
   updates the watchdog from the "cpu sched clock"

update_process_times() { ...  run_local_timers() --> softlockup_tick()
--> check (touch_timestamp == 0) (it is "YES" here, we have set
"touch_timestamp = 0" at kgdb) --> __touch_softlockup_watchdog()
***(A)--> reset "touch_timestamp" to "get_timestamp()" (Here, the
"touch_timestamp" will still be set to 100s.)  ...

    scheduler_tick() ***(B)--> sched_clock_tick() (update "cpu sched
    clock" to "hardware time" = 180s) ...  }

5) The Second timer interrupt handler appears to have a large jump and
   trips the softlockup warning.

update_process_times() { ...  run_local_timers() --> softlockup_tick()
--> "cpu sched clock" - "touch_timestamp" = 180s-100s > 60s --> printk
"soft lockup error messages" ...  }

note: ***(A) reset "touch_timestamp" to "get_timestamp(this_cpu)"

Why "touch_timestamp" is 100 sec, instead of 180 sec?

With the CONFIG_HAVE_UNSTABLE_SCHED_CLOCK" set the call trace of
get_timestamp() is:

get_timestamp(this_cpu) -->cpu_clock(this_cpu)
-->sched_clock_cpu(this_cpu) -->__update_sched_clock(sched_clock_data,
now)

The __update_sched_clock() function uses the GTOD tick value to create
a window to normalize the "now" values.  So if "now" values is too big
for sched_clock_data, it will be ignored.

The fix is to invoke sched_clock_tick() to update "cpu sched clock" in
order to recover from this state.  This is done by introducing the
function touch_softlockup_watchdog_sync(), which allows kgdb to
request that the sched clock is updated when the watchdog thread runs
the first time after a resume from kgdb.

Signed-off-by: Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@windriver.com>
Signed-off-by: Dongdong Deng <Dongdong.Deng@windriver.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: peterz@infradead.org

---
 include/linux/sched.h |    4 ++++
 kernel/kgdb.c         |    6 +++---
 kernel/softlockup.c   |   16 ++++++++++++++++
 3 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

--- a/kernel/softlockup.c
+++ b/kernel/softlockup.c
@@ -79,6 +79,14 @@ void touch_softlockup_watchdog(void)
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(touch_softlockup_watchdog);
 
+static int softlock_touch_sync[NR_CPUS];
+
+void touch_softlockup_watchdog_sync(void)
+{
+	softlock_touch_sync[raw_smp_processor_id()] = 1;
+	__raw_get_cpu_var(touch_timestamp) = 0;
+}
+
 void touch_all_softlockup_watchdogs(void)
 {
 	int cpu;
@@ -118,6 +126,14 @@ void softlockup_tick(void)
 	}
 
 	if (touch_timestamp == 0) {
+		if (unlikely(softlock_touch_sync[this_cpu])) {
+			/*
+			 * If the time stamp was touched atomically
+			 * make sure the scheduler tick is up to date.
+			 */
+			softlock_touch_sync[this_cpu] = 0;
+			sched_clock_tick();
+		}
 		__touch_softlockup_watchdog();
 		return;
 	}
--- a/include/linux/sched.h
+++ b/include/linux/sched.h
@@ -300,6 +300,7 @@ extern void sched_show_task(struct task_
 #ifdef CONFIG_DETECT_SOFTLOCKUP
 extern void softlockup_tick(void);
 extern void touch_softlockup_watchdog(void);
+extern void touch_softlockup_watchdog_sync(void);
 extern void touch_all_softlockup_watchdogs(void);
 extern int proc_dosoftlockup_thresh(struct ctl_table *table, int write,
 				    struct file *filp, void __user *buffer,
@@ -313,6 +314,9 @@ static inline void softlockup_tick(void)
 static inline void touch_softlockup_watchdog(void)
 {
 }
+static inline void touch_softlockup_watchdog_sync(void)
+{
+}
 static inline void touch_all_softlockup_watchdogs(void)
 {
 }
--- a/kernel/kgdb.c
+++ b/kernel/kgdb.c
@@ -590,7 +590,7 @@ static void kgdb_wait(struct pt_regs *re
 
 	/* Signal the primary CPU that we are done: */
 	atomic_set(&cpu_in_kgdb[cpu], 0);
-	touch_softlockup_watchdog();
+	touch_softlockup_watchdog_sync();
 	clocksource_touch_watchdog();
 	local_irq_restore(flags);
 }
@@ -1433,7 +1433,7 @@ acquirelock:
 	    atomic_read(&kgdb_cpu_doing_single_step) != cpu) {
 
 		atomic_set(&kgdb_active, -1);
-		touch_softlockup_watchdog();
+		touch_softlockup_watchdog_sync();
 		clocksource_touch_watchdog();
 		local_irq_restore(flags);
 
@@ -1526,7 +1526,7 @@ acquirelock:
 kgdb_restore:
 	/* Free kgdb_active */
 	atomic_set(&kgdb_active, -1);
-	touch_softlockup_watchdog();
+	touch_softlockup_watchdog_sync();
 	clocksource_touch_watchdog();
 	local_irq_restore(flags);
 

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] softlockup: fix problem with long kernel pauses from kgdb
  2009-07-28 15:05   ` Jason Wessel
@ 2009-08-04 14:16     ` Ingo Molnar
  2009-08-04 14:53       ` [PATCH] softlockup: fix problem with long kernel pauses fromkgdb Jason Wessel
  2009-09-26  3:01       ` Yong Zhang
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Ingo Molnar @ 2009-08-04 14:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jason Wessel, Thomas Gleixner; +Cc: Peter Zijlstra, lkml, Deng, Dongdong


* Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@windriver.com> wrote:

> Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, 2009-07-27 at 15:03 -0500, Jason Wessel wrote:
> >> The fix is to simply invoke sched_clock_tick() to update "cpu sched
> >> clock" on exit from kgdb_handle_exception.
> > 
> > Is that a regular IRQ context, or is that NMI context?
> > 
> >> Signed-off-by: Dongdong Deng <Dongdong.Deng@windriver.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@windriver.com>
> >> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
> >> Cc: peterz@infradead.org
> >> ---
> >>  kernel/softlockup.c |    3 +++
> >>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> --- a/kernel/softlockup.c
> >> +++ b/kernel/softlockup.c
> >> @@ -118,6 +118,9 @@ void softlockup_tick(void)
> >>         }
> >>  
> >>         if (touch_timestamp == 0) {
> >> +               /* If the time stamp was touched externally make sure the
> >> +                * scheduler tick is up to date as well */
> >> +               sched_clock_tick();
> >>                 __touch_softlockup_watchdog();
> >>                 return;
> >>         }
> >>
> > 
> > Aside from the funny comment style (please fix) the fix does look
> > sensible.
> 
> It turns out that further testing of this patch shows a regression in
> the ability to detect certain lockups.  It is a direct result of the
> way the scheduling code makes use of the touch_softlockup_watchdog().
> With the above proposed patch the tick was getting updated after a
> resume, but was also getting updated with the run_timers(), and if
> that happened before the softlockup tick, no softlockup would get
> reported (note that I was using some test code to induce softlockups).
> 
> The patch below is a bit more invasive but solves the problem by
> allowing kgdb to request that the sched cpu clock is updated only when
> returning from a state where we know we need to force the update.
> 
> Would this change be an acceptable solution to allow kgdb to
> peacefully exist with the softlockup code?
> 
> Thanks,
> Jason.
> 
> 
> -----
> From: Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@windriver.com>
> Subject: [PATCH] softlockup: add sched_clock_tick() to avoid kernel warning on kgdb resume
> 
> When CONFIG_HAVE_UNSTABLE_SCHED_CLOCK is set sched_clock() gets the
> time from hardware, such as from TSC.  In this configuration kgdb will
> report a softlock warning messages on resuming or detaching from a
> debug session.
> 
> Sequence of events in the problem case:
> 
> 1) "cpu sched clock" and "hardware time" are at 100 sec prior
>    to a call to kgdb_handle_exception()
> 
> 2) Debugger waits in kgdb_handle_exception() for 80 sec and on exit
>    the following is called ...  touch_softlockup_watchdog() -->
>    __raw_get_cpu_var(touch_timestamp) = 0;
> 
> 3) "cpu sched clock" = 100s (it was not updated, because the interrupt
>    was disabled in kgdb) but the "hardware time" = 180 sec
> 
> 4) The first timer interrupt after resuming from kgdb_handle_exception
>    updates the watchdog from the "cpu sched clock"
> 
> update_process_times() { ...  run_local_timers() --> softlockup_tick()
> --> check (touch_timestamp == 0) (it is "YES" here, we have set
> "touch_timestamp = 0" at kgdb) --> __touch_softlockup_watchdog()
> ***(A)--> reset "touch_timestamp" to "get_timestamp()" (Here, the
> "touch_timestamp" will still be set to 100s.)  ...
> 
>     scheduler_tick() ***(B)--> sched_clock_tick() (update "cpu sched
>     clock" to "hardware time" = 180s) ...  }
> 
> 5) The Second timer interrupt handler appears to have a large jump and
>    trips the softlockup warning.
> 
> update_process_times() { ...  run_local_timers() --> softlockup_tick()
> --> "cpu sched clock" - "touch_timestamp" = 180s-100s > 60s --> printk
> "soft lockup error messages" ...  }
> 
> note: ***(A) reset "touch_timestamp" to "get_timestamp(this_cpu)"
> 
> Why "touch_timestamp" is 100 sec, instead of 180 sec?
> 
> With the CONFIG_HAVE_UNSTABLE_SCHED_CLOCK" set the call trace of
> get_timestamp() is:
> 
> get_timestamp(this_cpu) -->cpu_clock(this_cpu)
> -->sched_clock_cpu(this_cpu) -->__update_sched_clock(sched_clock_data,
> now)
> 
> The __update_sched_clock() function uses the GTOD tick value to create
> a window to normalize the "now" values.  So if "now" values is too big
> for sched_clock_data, it will be ignored.
> 
> The fix is to invoke sched_clock_tick() to update "cpu sched clock" in
> order to recover from this state.  This is done by introducing the
> function touch_softlockup_watchdog_sync(), which allows kgdb to
> request that the sched clock is updated when the watchdog thread runs
> the first time after a resume from kgdb.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@windriver.com>
> Signed-off-by: Dongdong Deng <Dongdong.Deng@windriver.com>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
> Cc: peterz@infradead.org
> 
> ---
>  include/linux/sched.h |    4 ++++
>  kernel/kgdb.c         |    6 +++---
>  kernel/softlockup.c   |   16 ++++++++++++++++
>  3 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> --- a/kernel/softlockup.c
> +++ b/kernel/softlockup.c
> @@ -79,6 +79,14 @@ void touch_softlockup_watchdog(void)
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(touch_softlockup_watchdog);
>  
> +static int softlock_touch_sync[NR_CPUS];
> +
> +void touch_softlockup_watchdog_sync(void)
> +{
> +	softlock_touch_sync[raw_smp_processor_id()] = 1;
> +	__raw_get_cpu_var(touch_timestamp) = 0;
> +}
> +
>  void touch_all_softlockup_watchdogs(void)
>  {
>  	int cpu;
> @@ -118,6 +126,14 @@ void softlockup_tick(void)
>  	}
>  
>  	if (touch_timestamp == 0) {
> +		if (unlikely(softlock_touch_sync[this_cpu])) {
> +			/*
> +			 * If the time stamp was touched atomically
> +			 * make sure the scheduler tick is up to date.
> +			 */
> +			softlock_touch_sync[this_cpu] = 0;
> +			sched_clock_tick();
> +		}

Hm, this looks quite ugly. Peter, Thomas, can you think of a cleaner 
solution?

	Ingo

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] softlockup: fix problem with long kernel pauses fromkgdb
  2009-08-04 14:16     ` Ingo Molnar
@ 2009-08-04 14:53       ` Jason Wessel
  2009-08-04 14:59         ` Ingo Molnar
  2009-09-26  3:01       ` Yong Zhang
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Jason Wessel @ 2009-08-04 14:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Ingo Molnar; +Cc: Thomas Gleixner, Peter Zijlstra, lkml, Deng, Dongdong

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@windriver.com> wrote:
> 
>> -----
>> From: Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@windriver.com>
>> Subject: [PATCH] softlockup: add sched_clock_tick() to avoid kernel warning on kgdb resume
>>
>> When CONFIG_HAVE_UNSTABLE_SCHED_CLOCK is set sched_clock() gets the
>> time from hardware, such as from TSC.  In this configuration kgdb will
>> report a softlock warning messages on resuming or detaching from a
>> debug session.
>>
> 
> Hm, this looks quite ugly. Peter, Thomas, can you think of a cleaner 
> solution?
> 

Below was a more specific test case I received from Dongdong Deng
which did not require kgdb.  The test case is not something to merge,
it is just a simple module to build to demonstrate the problem outside
of kgdb.

The patch I submitted might have been on the "ugly" side, but there
was not an obvious way to solve the problem without making changes in
kernel/sched*.  I opted for something that was entirely self contained
to the softlockup code.

Jason.

============= test case ================
/* Information about this test case.
 * -------------------------------------
 * 1: CONFIG_HAVE_UNSTABLE_SCHED_CLOCK=y
 * 
 * 2: export clocksource_touch_watchdog for this test case to build.
 *
 * 
 * diff --git a/kernel/time/clocksource.c b/kernel/time/clocksource.c
 * index 7466cb8..c81f9a3 100644
 * --- a/kernel/time/clocksource.c
 * +++ b/kernel/time/clocksource.c
 * @@ -319,6 +319,7 @@ void clocksource_touch_watchdog(void)
 *  {
 * 	    clocksource_resume_watchdog();
 *  }
 * +EXPORT_SYMBOL(clocksource_touch_watchdog);
 * 
 * 3: build following module, insmod and observe the softlockup
 *    warning or watch your system reboot if you have reboot
 *    on softlockup set.
 * 
 */

#include <linux/module.h>
#include <linux/init.h>
#include <linux/irqflags.h>
#include <linux/delay.h>
#include <linux/sched.h>
#include <linux/clocksource.h>



static int example_init(void)
{
	unsigned long flags;
	unsigned i;

	printk(KERN_NOTICE"softlockup test init\n");

	local_irq_save(flags);

	for (i = 0; i < 70; i++)
		mdelay(1000);

	touch_softlockup_watchdog();
	clocksource_touch_watchdog();

	local_irq_restore(flags);

	return 0;
}

static void example_exit(void)
{
	printk(KERN_NOTICE"softlockup test exit\n");
}

module_init(example_init);
module_exit(example_exit);
MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] softlockup: fix problem with long kernel pauses fromkgdb
  2009-08-04 14:53       ` [PATCH] softlockup: fix problem with long kernel pauses fromkgdb Jason Wessel
@ 2009-08-04 14:59         ` Ingo Molnar
  2009-08-21 12:42           ` [PATCH] softlockup: fix problem with long kernel pauses from kgdb DDD
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Ingo Molnar @ 2009-08-04 14:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jason Wessel; +Cc: Thomas Gleixner, Peter Zijlstra, lkml, Deng, Dongdong


* Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@windriver.com> wrote:

> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@windriver.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> -----
> >> From: Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@windriver.com>
> >> Subject: [PATCH] softlockup: add sched_clock_tick() to avoid kernel warning on kgdb resume
> >>
> >> When CONFIG_HAVE_UNSTABLE_SCHED_CLOCK is set sched_clock() gets the
> >> time from hardware, such as from TSC.  In this configuration kgdb will
> >> report a softlock warning messages on resuming or detaching from a
> >> debug session.
> >>
> > 
> > Hm, this looks quite ugly. Peter, Thomas, can you think of a 
> > cleaner solution?
> > 
> 
> Below was a more specific test case I received from Dongdong Deng 
> which did not require kgdb.  The test case is not something to 
> merge, it is just a simple module to build to demonstrate the 
> problem outside of kgdb.
> 
> The patch I submitted might have been on the "ugly" side, but 
> there was not an obvious way to solve the problem without making 
> changes in kernel/sched*.  I opted for something that was entirely 
> self contained to the softlockup code.

it's not really the fault of your patch really - all these 
integrations along dynticks, scheduler time and softlockup feel a 
bit awkward. Wondering whether there's some nicer way.

	Ingo

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] softlockup: fix problem with long kernel pauses from kgdb
  2009-08-04 14:59         ` Ingo Molnar
@ 2009-08-21 12:42           ` DDD
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: DDD @ 2009-08-21 12:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jason Wessel, Ingo Molnar; +Cc: Thomas Gleixner, Peter Zijlstra, lkml

Hi Jason & Ingo,

If we apply Peter's patch which was send out just a moment ago,
I believe this issue will gone.  :-) 

Thanks,
Dongdong


[PATCH -rt] timer: delay waking softirqs from the jiffy tick
...
...
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
---
 kernel/timer.c |    2 +-
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/timer.c b/kernel/timer.c
index 8137cce..96ac1b4 100644
--- a/kernel/timer.c
+++ b/kernel/timer.c
@@ -1221,10 +1221,10 @@ void update_process_times(int user_tick)

       /* Note: this timer irq context must be accounted for as well. */
       account_process_tick(p, user_tick);
+       scheduler_tick();
       run_local_timers();
       if (rcu_pending(cpu))
               rcu_check_callbacks(cpu, user_tick);
-       scheduler_tick();
       run_posix_cpu_timers(p);
 }



On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 16:59 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: 
> * Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@windriver.com> wrote:
> 
> > Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > * Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@windriver.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > >> -----
> > >> From: Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@windriver.com>
> > >> Subject: [PATCH] softlockup: add sched_clock_tick() to avoid kernel warning on kgdb resume
> > >>
> > >> When CONFIG_HAVE_UNSTABLE_SCHED_CLOCK is set sched_clock() gets the
> > >> time from hardware, such as from TSC.  In this configuration kgdb will
> > >> report a softlock warning messages on resuming or detaching from a
> > >> debug session.
> > >>
> > > 
> > > Hm, this looks quite ugly. Peter, Thomas, can you think of a 
> > > cleaner solution?
> > > 
> > 
> > Below was a more specific test case I received from Dongdong Deng 
> > which did not require kgdb.  The test case is not something to 
> > merge, it is just a simple module to build to demonstrate the 
> > problem outside of kgdb.
> > 
> > The patch I submitted might have been on the "ugly" side, but 
> > there was not an obvious way to solve the problem without making 
> > changes in kernel/sched*.  I opted for something that was entirely 
> > self contained to the softlockup code.
> 
> it's not really the fault of your patch really - all these 
> integrations along dynticks, scheduler time and softlockup feel a 
> bit awkward. Wondering whether there's some nicer way.
> 
> 	Ingo

^ permalink raw reply related	[flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] softlockup: fix problem with long kernel pauses from kgdb
  2009-08-04 14:16     ` Ingo Molnar
  2009-08-04 14:53       ` [PATCH] softlockup: fix problem with long kernel pauses fromkgdb Jason Wessel
@ 2009-09-26  3:01       ` Yong Zhang
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Yong Zhang @ 2009-09-26  3:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Ingo Molnar
  Cc: Jason Wessel, Thomas Gleixner, Peter Zijlstra, lkml, Deng, Dongdong

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7147 bytes --]

On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 10:16 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
>
> * Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@windriver.com> wrote:
>
>> Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> > On Mon, 2009-07-27 at 15:03 -0500, Jason Wessel wrote:
>> >> The fix is to simply invoke sched_clock_tick() to update "cpu sched
>> >> clock" on exit from kgdb_handle_exception.
>> >
>> > Is that a regular IRQ context, or is that NMI context?
>> >
>> >> Signed-off-by: Dongdong Deng <Dongdong.Deng@windriver.com>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@windriver.com>
>> >> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
>> >> Cc: peterz@infradead.org
>> >> ---
>> >>  kernel/softlockup.c |    3 +++
>> >>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>> >>
>> >> --- a/kernel/softlockup.c
>> >> +++ b/kernel/softlockup.c
>> >> @@ -118,6 +118,9 @@ void softlockup_tick(void)
>> >>         }
>> >>
>> >>         if (touch_timestamp == 0) {
>> >> +               /* If the time stamp was touched externally make sure the
>> >> +                * scheduler tick is up to date as well */
>> >> +               sched_clock_tick();
>> >>                 __touch_softlockup_watchdog();
>> >>                 return;
>> >>         }
>> >>
>> >
>> > Aside from the funny comment style (please fix) the fix does look
>> > sensible.
>>
>> It turns out that further testing of this patch shows a regression in
>> the ability to detect certain lockups.  It is a direct result of the
>> way the scheduling code makes use of the touch_softlockup_watchdog().
>> With the above proposed patch the tick was getting updated after a
>> resume, but was also getting updated with the run_timers(), and if
>> that happened before the softlockup tick, no softlockup would get
>> reported (note that I was using some test code to induce softlockups).
>>
>> The patch below is a bit more invasive but solves the problem by
>> allowing kgdb to request that the sched cpu clock is updated only when
>> returning from a state where we know we need to force the update.
>>
>> Would this change be an acceptable solution to allow kgdb to
>> peacefully exist with the softlockup code?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jason.
>>
>>
>> -----
>> From: Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@windriver.com>
>> Subject: [PATCH] softlockup: add sched_clock_tick() to avoid kernel warning on kgdb resume
>>
>> When CONFIG_HAVE_UNSTABLE_SCHED_CLOCK is set sched_clock() gets the
>> time from hardware, such as from TSC.  In this configuration kgdb will
>> report a softlock warning messages on resuming or detaching from a
>> debug session.
>>
>> Sequence of events in the problem case:
>>
>> 1) "cpu sched clock" and "hardware time" are at 100 sec prior
>>    to a call to kgdb_handle_exception()
>>
>> 2) Debugger waits in kgdb_handle_exception() for 80 sec and on exit
>>    the following is called ...  touch_softlockup_watchdog() -->
>>    __raw_get_cpu_var(touch_timestamp) = 0;
>>
>> 3) "cpu sched clock" = 100s (it was not updated, because the interrupt
>>    was disabled in kgdb) but the "hardware time" = 180 sec
>>
>> 4) The first timer interrupt after resuming from kgdb_handle_exception
>>    updates the watchdog from the "cpu sched clock"
>>
>> update_process_times() { ...  run_local_timers() --> softlockup_tick()
>> --> check (touch_timestamp == 0) (it is "YES" here, we have set
>> "touch_timestamp = 0" at kgdb) --> __touch_softlockup_watchdog()
>> ***(A)--> reset "touch_timestamp" to "get_timestamp()" (Here, the
>> "touch_timestamp" will still be set to 100s.)  ...
>>
>>     scheduler_tick() ***(B)--> sched_clock_tick() (update "cpu sched
>>     clock" to "hardware time" = 180s) ...  }
>>
>> 5) The Second timer interrupt handler appears to have a large jump and
>>    trips the softlockup warning.
>>
>> update_process_times() { ...  run_local_timers() --> softlockup_tick()
>> --> "cpu sched clock" - "touch_timestamp" = 180s-100s > 60s --> printk
>> "soft lockup error messages" ...  }
>>
>> note: ***(A) reset "touch_timestamp" to "get_timestamp(this_cpu)"
>>
>> Why "touch_timestamp" is 100 sec, instead of 180 sec?
>>
>> With the CONFIG_HAVE_UNSTABLE_SCHED_CLOCK" set the call trace of
>> get_timestamp() is:
>>
>> get_timestamp(this_cpu) -->cpu_clock(this_cpu)
>> -->sched_clock_cpu(this_cpu) -->__update_sched_clock(sched_clock_data,
>> now)
>>
>> The __update_sched_clock() function uses the GTOD tick value to create
>> a window to normalize the "now" values.  So if "now" values is too big
>> for sched_clock_data, it will be ignored.
>>
>> The fix is to invoke sched_clock_tick() to update "cpu sched clock" in
>> order to recover from this state.  This is done by introducing the
>> function touch_softlockup_watchdog_sync(), which allows kgdb to
>> request that the sched clock is updated when the watchdog thread runs
>> the first time after a resume from kgdb.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@windriver.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Dongdong Deng <Dongdong.Deng@windriver.com>
>> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
>> Cc: peterz@infradead.org
>>
>> ---
>>  include/linux/sched.h |    4 ++++
>>  kernel/kgdb.c         |    6 +++---
>>  kernel/softlockup.c   |   16 ++++++++++++++++
>>  3 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> --- a/kernel/softlockup.c
>> +++ b/kernel/softlockup.c
>> @@ -79,6 +79,14 @@ void touch_softlockup_watchdog(void)
>>  }
>>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(touch_softlockup_watchdog);
>>
>> +static int softlock_touch_sync[NR_CPUS];
>> +
>> +void touch_softlockup_watchdog_sync(void)
>> +{
>> +     softlock_touch_sync[raw_smp_processor_id()] = 1;
>> +     __raw_get_cpu_var(touch_timestamp) = 0;
>> +}
>> +
>>  void touch_all_softlockup_watchdogs(void)
>>  {
>>       int cpu;
>> @@ -118,6 +126,14 @@ void softlockup_tick(void)
>>       }
>>
>>       if (touch_timestamp == 0) {
>> +             if (unlikely(softlock_touch_sync[this_cpu])) {
>> +                     /*
>> +                      * If the time stamp was touched atomically
>> +                      * make sure the scheduler tick is up to date.
>> +                      */
>> +                     softlock_touch_sync[this_cpu] = 0;
>> +                     sched_clock_tick();
>> +             }
>
> Hm, this looks quite ugly. Peter, Thomas, can you think of a cleaner
> solution?
>

We need not to sync up sched_clock in softlockup_tick, it can just return
and sync up the timestamp in the next tick. This will not touch what should
be done by dynticks, scheduler time and so on and keep softlockup_tick
clean.

I have rewrote the patch based on above, please check the attachment.

Thanks,
Yong

>        Ingo
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>

[-- Attachment #2: 0001-softlockup-introduce-touch_softlockup_watchdog_sync.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 3305 bytes --]

From 1821356596bdd28dfc69f708a6929394da351001 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 10:37:14 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] softlockup: introduce touch_softlockup_watchdog_sync()

In case of system halted for a long time, system will
do time sync up in the first incoming tick. But if we
also touch softlockup_tick timestamp at the same time,
softlockup_tick could keep a old timestamp and
this will lead annoying softlockup warning.
So move softlockup syncing it's timestamp to the next
tick.

Signed-off-by: Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@windriver.com>
Signed-off-by: Dongdong Deng <Dongdong.Deng@windriver.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
LKML-Reference: <http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/7/27/317>
Signed-off-by: Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@gmail.com>
---
 include/linux/sched.h |    4 ++++
 kernel/softlockup.c   |   18 ++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
index 75e6e60..1aa4574 100644
--- a/include/linux/sched.h
+++ b/include/linux/sched.h
@@ -307,6 +307,7 @@ extern void sched_show_task(struct task_struct *p);
 #ifdef CONFIG_DETECT_SOFTLOCKUP
 extern void softlockup_tick(void);
 extern void touch_softlockup_watchdog(void);
+extern void touch_softlockup_watchdog_sync(void);
 extern void touch_all_softlockup_watchdogs(void);
 extern int proc_dosoftlockup_thresh(struct ctl_table *table, int write,
 				    void __user *buffer,
@@ -320,6 +321,9 @@ static inline void softlockup_tick(void)
 static inline void touch_softlockup_watchdog(void)
 {
 }
+static inline void touch_softlockup_watchdog_sync(void)
+{
+}
 static inline void touch_all_softlockup_watchdogs(void)
 {
 }
diff --git a/kernel/softlockup.c b/kernel/softlockup.c
index 81324d1..628d531 100644
--- a/kernel/softlockup.c
+++ b/kernel/softlockup.c
@@ -25,6 +25,7 @@ static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(print_lock);
 static DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned long, touch_timestamp);
 static DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned long, print_timestamp);
 static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct task_struct *, watchdog_task);
+static DEFINE_PER_CPU(bool, softlock_touch_sync);
 
 static int __read_mostly did_panic;
 int __read_mostly softlockup_thresh = 60;
@@ -79,6 +80,13 @@ void touch_softlockup_watchdog(void)
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(touch_softlockup_watchdog);
 
+void touch_softlockup_watchdog_sync(void)
+{
+	__raw_get_cpu_var(touch_timestamp) = 0;
+	__raw_get_cpu_var(softlock_touch_sync) = true;
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(touch_softlockup_watchdog_sync);
+
 void touch_all_softlockup_watchdogs(void)
 {
 	int cpu;
@@ -117,6 +125,15 @@ void softlockup_tick(void)
 		return;
 	}
 
+	/*
+	 * If the scheduler tick is not up to date. Skip this check
+	 * and wait for the timestamp to to synced in the next tick
+	 */
+	if (unlikely(per_cpu(softlock_touch_sync, this_cpu))) {
+		per_cpu(softlock_touch_sync, this_cpu) = false;
+		return;
+	}
+
 	if (touch_timestamp == 0) {
 		__touch_softlockup_watchdog();
 		return;
@@ -216,6 +233,7 @@ cpu_callback(struct notifier_block *nfb, unsigned long action, void *hcpu)
 			return NOTIFY_BAD;
 		}
 		per_cpu(touch_timestamp, hotcpu) = 0;
+		per_cpu(softlock_touch_sync, hotcpu) = false;
 		per_cpu(watchdog_task, hotcpu) = p;
 		kthread_bind(p, hotcpu);
 		break;
-- 
1.6.0.4


^ permalink raw reply related	[flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2009-09-26  3:09 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2009-07-27 20:03 [PATCH] softlockup: fix problem with long kernel pauses from kgdb Jason Wessel
2009-07-27 20:18 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-07-27 21:25   ` Jason Wessel
2009-07-28 15:05   ` Jason Wessel
2009-08-04 14:16     ` Ingo Molnar
2009-08-04 14:53       ` [PATCH] softlockup: fix problem with long kernel pauses fromkgdb Jason Wessel
2009-08-04 14:59         ` Ingo Molnar
2009-08-21 12:42           ` [PATCH] softlockup: fix problem with long kernel pauses from kgdb DDD
2009-09-26  3:01       ` Yong Zhang

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).