From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0442DC433FF for ; Mon, 5 Aug 2019 14:55:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB77E206C1 for ; Mon, 5 Aug 2019 14:55:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728043AbfHEOzb (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Aug 2019 10:55:31 -0400 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:43702 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726508AbfHEOzb (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Aug 2019 10:55:31 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098396.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x75Eqj3R050951; Mon, 5 Aug 2019 10:54:49 -0400 Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2u6ne14fm6-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 05 Aug 2019 10:54:49 -0400 Received: from m0098396.ppops.net (m0098396.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x75Es29c056802; Mon, 5 Aug 2019 10:54:49 -0400 Received: from ppma04dal.us.ibm.com (7a.29.35a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.53.41.122]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2u6ne14fkc-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 05 Aug 2019 10:54:49 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma04dal.us.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma04dal.us.ibm.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x75EsSgv007066; Mon, 5 Aug 2019 14:54:48 GMT Received: from b01cxnp22034.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01cxnp22034.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.198.24]) by ppma04dal.us.ibm.com with ESMTP id 2u51w6hfxq-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 05 Aug 2019 14:54:48 +0000 Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.199.108]) by b01cxnp22034.gho.pok.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x75Esjgr41812444 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 5 Aug 2019 14:54:46 GMT Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id D85F0B2064; Mon, 5 Aug 2019 14:54:45 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9E52B2067; Mon, 5 Aug 2019 14:54:45 +0000 (GMT) Received: from paulmck-ThinkPad-W541 (unknown [9.70.82.154]) by b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Mon, 5 Aug 2019 14:54:45 +0000 (GMT) Received: by paulmck-ThinkPad-W541 (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C9BEC16C4079; Mon, 5 Aug 2019 07:54:48 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2019 07:54:48 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: rcu@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@kernel.org, jiangshanlai@gmail.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com, josh@joshtriplett.org, tglx@linutronix.de, rostedt@goodmis.org, dhowells@redhat.com, edumazet@google.com, fweisbec@gmail.com, oleg@redhat.com, joel@joelfernandes.org Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 14/14] rcu/nohz: Make multi_cpu_stop() enable tick on all online CPUs Message-ID: <20190805145448.GI28441@linux.ibm.com> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.ibm.com References: <20190802151435.GA1081@linux.ibm.com> <20190802151501.13069-14-paulmck@linux.ibm.com> <20190804144317.GF2349@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20190804144835.GB2386@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20190804184159.GC28441@linux.ibm.com> <20190805080531.GH2349@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190805080531.GH2349@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2019-08-05_07:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1906280000 definitions=main-1908050166 Sender: rcu-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: rcu@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 10:05:31AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Sun, Aug 04, 2019 at 11:41:59AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 04, 2019 at 04:48:35PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Sun, Aug 04, 2019 at 04:43:17PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 08:15:01AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > > The multi_cpu_stop() function relies on the scheduler to gain control from > > > > > whatever is running on the various online CPUs, including any nohz_full > > > > > CPUs running long loops in kernel-mode code. Lack of the scheduler-clock > > > > > interrupt on such CPUs can delay multi_cpu_stop() for several minutes > > > > > and can also result in RCU CPU stall warnings. This commit therefore > > > > > causes multi_cpu_stop() to enable the scheduler-clock interrupt on all > > > > > online CPUs. > > > > > > > > This sounds wrong; should we be fixing sched_can_stop_tick() instead to > > > > return false when the stop task is runnable? > > > > Agreed. However, it is proving surprisingly hard to come up with a > > code sequence that has the effect of rcu_nocb without nohz_full. > > And rcu_nocb works just fine. With nohz_full also in place, I am > > decreasing the failure rate, but it still fails, perhaps a few times > > per hour of TREE04 rcutorture on an eight-CPU system. (My 12-CPU > > system stubbornly refuses to fail. Good thing I kept the eight-CPU > > system around, I guess.) > > > > When I arrive at some sequence of actions that actually work reliably, > > then by all means let's put it somewhere in the NO_HZ_FULL machinery! > > I'm confused; what are you arguing? The patch as proposed is just wrong, > it needs to go. Eventually, sure. But one dragon at a time. Right now that dragon is "what is required to get multi_cpu_stop() to work in a timely fashioon". The "where does that code really go" dragon comes later. > > > And even without that; I don't understand how we're not instantly > > > preempted the moment we enqueue the stop task. > > > > There is no preemption because CONFIG_PREEMPT=n for the scenarios still > > That doesn't make sense; even with CONFIG_PREEMPT=n we set > TIF_NEED_RESCHED. We'll just not react to it as promptly (only explicit > rescheduling points and return to userspace). Enabling the tick will not > make any difference what so ever. > > Tick based preemption will not 'fix' the lack of wakeup preemption. If > the stop task wakeup didn't set TIF_NEED_RESCHED, the OTHER/CFS tick > will not either. Seems logical except for the fact that multi_cpu_stop() really is taking in excess of five minutes on a regular basis. > > having trouble. Yes, there are cond_resched() calls, but they don't do > > anything unless the appropriate flags are set, which won't always happen > > without the tick, apparently. Or without -something- that isn't always > > happening as it should. > > Right; so clearly we're not understanding what's happening. That seems > like a requirement for actually doing a patch. Almost but not quite. It is a requirement for a patch *that* *is* *supposed* *to* *be* *a* *fix*. If you are trying to prohibit me from writing experimental patches, please feel free to take a long walk on a short pier. Understood??? > > > Any enqueue, should go through check_preempt_curr() which will be an > > > instant resched_curr() when we just woke the stop class. > > > > I did try hitting all of the CPUs with resched_cpu(). Ten times on each > > CPU with a ten-jiffy wait between each. This might have decreased the > > probability of excessively long CPU-stopper waits by a factor of two or > > three, but it did not eliminate the excessively long waits. > > > > What else should I try? > > > > For example, are there any diagnostics I could collect, say from within > > the CPU stopper when things are taking too long? I see CPU-stopper > > delays in excess of five -minutes-, so this is anything but subtle. > > Catch the whole thing in a function trace? > > The chain that should instantly set TIF_NEED_RESCHED: > > stop_machine() > stop_machine_cpuslocked() > stop_cpus() > __stop_cpus() > queue_stop_cpus_work() > cpu_stop_queue_work() > wake_up_q() > wake_up_process() > > > wake_up_process() > try_to_wake_up() > ttwu_queue() > ttwu_queue_remote() > <- scheduler_ipi() > sched_ttwu_pending() > ttwu_do_activate() > > ttwu_do_activate() > activate_task() > ttwu_do_wakeup() > check_preempt_curr() > resched_curr() > > You could frob some tracing into __stop_cpus(), before > wait_for_completion(), at that point all the CPUs in @cpumask should > either be running the stop task or have TIF_NEED_RESCHED set. Thank you, this should be quite helpful. Thanx, Paul