From: Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
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, peterz@infradead.org,
rostedt@goodmis.org, dhowells@redhat.com, edumazet@google.com,
fweisbec@gmail.com, oleg@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 14/14] rcu/nohz: Make multi_cpu_stop() enable tick on all online CPUs
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2019 15:42:57 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190815194257.GA23194@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190815183937.GK28441@linux.ibm.com>
On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 11:39:37AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 02:15:00PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 10:23:51AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > [snip]
> > > > > > > If so, perhaps that monitoring could periodically invoke an RCU function
> > > > > > > that I provide for deciding when to turn the tick on. We would also need
> > > > > > > to work out how to turn the tick off in a timely fashion once the CPU got
> > > > > > > out of kernel mode, perhaps in rcu_user_enter() or rcu_nmi_exit_common().
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If this would be called only every second or so, the separate grace-period
> > > > > > > checking is still needed for its shorter timespan, though.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Do you want me to test the below patch to see if it fixes the issue with my
> > > > > > other test case (where I had a nohz full CPU holding up a grace period).
> > > > >
> > > > > Please!
> > > >
> > > > I tried the patch below, but it did not seem to make a difference to the
> > > > issue I was seeing. My test tree is here in case you can spot anything I did
> > > > not do right: https://github.com/joelagnel/linux-kernel/commits/rcu/nohz-test
> > > > The main patch is here:
> > > > https://github.com/joelagnel/linux-kernel/commit/4dc282b559d918a0be826936f997db0bdad7abb3
> > >
> > > That is more aggressive that rcutorture's rcu_torture_fwd_prog_nr(), so
> > > I am guessing that I need to up rcu_torture_fwd_prog_nr()'s game. I am
> > > currently testing that.
> > >
> > > > On the trace output, I grep something like: egrep "(rcu_perf|cpu 3|3d)". I
> > > > see a few ticks after 300ms, but then there are no more ticks and just a
> > > > periodic resched_cpu() from rcu_implicit_dynticks_qs():
> > > >
> > > > [ 19.534107] rcu_perf-165 12.... 2276436us : rcu_perf_writer: Start of rcuperf test
> > > > [ 19.557968] rcu_pree-10 0d..1 2287973us : rcu_implicit_dynticks_qs: Sending urgent resched to cpu 3
> > > > [ 20.136222] rcu_perf-165 3d.h. 2591894us : rcu_sched_clock_irq: sched-tick
> > > > [ 20.137185] rcu_perf-165 3d.h2 2591906us : rcu_sched_clock_irq: sched-tick
> > > > [ 20.138149] rcu_perf-165 3d.h. 2591911us : rcu_sched_clock_irq: sched-tick
> > > > [ 20.139106] rcu_perf-165 3d.h. 2591915us : rcu_sched_clock_irq: sched-tick
> > [snip]
> > > > [ 20.147797] rcu_perf-165 3d.h. 2591953us : rcu_sched_clock_irq: sched-tick
> > > > [ 20.148759] rcu_perf-165 3d.h. 2591957us : rcu_sched_clock_irq: sched-tick
> > > > [ 20.151655] rcu_pree-10 0d..1 2591979us : rcu_implicit_dynticks_qs: Sending urgent resched to cpu 3
> > > > [ 20.732938] rcu_pree-10 0d..1 2895960us : rcu_implicit_dynticks_qs: Sending urgent resched to cpu 3
> > [snip]
> > > > [ 26.566100] rcu_pree-10 0d..1 5935982us : rcu_implicit_dynticks_qs: Sending urgent resched to cpu 3
> > > > [ 27.144497] rcu_pree-10 0d..1 6239973us : rcu_implicit_dynticks_qs: Sending urgent resched to cpu 3
> > > > [ 27.192661] rcu_perf-165 3d.h. 6276923us : rcu_sched_clock_irq: sched-tick
> > > > [ 27.705789] rcu_pree-10 0d..1 6541901us : rcu_implicit_dynticks_qs: Sending urgent resched to cpu 3
> > > > [ 28.292155] rcu_pree-10 0d..1 6845974us : rcu_implicit_dynticks_qs: Sending urgent resched to cpu 3
> > > > [ 28.874049] rcu_pree-10 0d..1 7149972us : rcu_implicit_dynticks_qs: Sending urgent resched to cpu 3
> > > > [ 29.112646] rcu_perf-165 3.... 7275951us : rcu_perf_writer: End of rcuperf test
> > >
> > > That would be due to my own stupidity. I forgot to clear ->rcu_forced_tick
> > > in rcu_disable_tick_upon_qs() inside the "if" statement. This of course
> > > prevents rcu_nmi_exit_common() from ever re-enabling it.
> > >
> > > Excellent catch! Thank you for testing this!!!
> >
> > Ah I missed it too. Happy to help! I tried setting it as below but getting
> > same results:
> >
> > +/*
> > + * If the scheduler-clock interrupt was enabled on a nohz_full CPU
> > + * in order to get to a quiescent state, disable it.
> > + */
> > +void rcu_disable_tick_upon_qs(struct rcu_data *rdp)
> > +{
> > + if (tick_nohz_full_cpu(rdp->cpu) && rdp->rcu_forced_tick)
> > + tick_dep_clear_cpu(rdp->cpu, TICK_DEP_MASK_RCU);
> > + rdp->rcu_forced_tick = false;
>
> I put this inside the "if" statement, though I would not expect that to
> change behavior in this case.
>
> Does your test case still avoid turning on the tick more than once? Or
> is it turning on the tick each time the grace period gets too long, but
> without the tick managing to end the grace periods?
I will put some more prints and let you know. But it looks like I see a print
from rcu_sched_clock_irq() only once at around 700ms from the start of the
test loop. After that I don't see prints at all for the rest of the 7 seconds
of the test.
Before the test starts, I see several rcu_sched_clock_irq() at the regular
tick interval of 1 ms (HZ=1000).
> > > > [snip]
> > > > > Without that code, RCU can give false-positive splats at various points
> > > > > in its processing. ("Wait! How can a task be blocked waiting on a
> > > > > grace period that hasn't even started yet???")
> > > >
> > > > I did not fully understand the question in brackets though, a task can be on
> > > > a different CPU though which has nothing to do with the CPU that's going
> > > > offline/online so it could totally be waiting on a grace period right?
> > > >
> > > > Also waiting on a grace period that hasn't even started is totally possible:
> > > >
> > > > GP1 GP2
> > > > |<--------->|<-------->|
> > > > ^ ^
> > > > | |____ task gets unblocked
> > > > task blocks
> > > > on synchronize_rcu
> > > > but is waiting on
> > > > GP2 which hasn't started
> > > >
> > > > Or did I misunderstand the question?
> > >
> > > There is a ->gp_tasks field in the leaf rcu_node structures that
> > > references a list of tasks blocking the current grace period. When there
> > > is no grace period in progress (as is the case from the end of GP1 to
> > > the beginning of GP2, the RCU code expects ->gp_tasks to be NULL.
> > > Without the curiosity code you pointed out above, ->gp_tasks could
> > > in fact end up being non-NULL when no grace period was in progress.
> > >
> > > And did end up being non-NULL from time to time, initially every few
> > > hundred hours of a particular rcutorture scenario.
> >
> > Oh ok! I will think more about it. I am not yet able to connect the gp_tasks
> > being non-NULL to the CPU going offline/online scenario though. Maybe I
> > should delete this code, run an experiment and trace for this condition
> > (gp_tasks != NULL)?
>
> Or you could dig through the git logs for this code change.
Ok will do.
> > I love it how you found these issues by heavy testing and fixed them.
>
> Me, I would have rather foreseen them and avoided them in the first place,
> but I agree that it is better for rcutorture to find them than for some
> hapless user somewhere to be inconvenienced by them. ;-)
True, forseeing is always better ;)
thanks,
- Joel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-08-15 19:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 57+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-08-02 15:14 [PATCH tip/core/rcu 0/14] No-CBs bypass addition for v5.4 Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-02 15:14 ` [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 01/14] rcu/nocb: Atomic ->len field in rcu_segcblist structure Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-04 14:50 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-08-04 14:52 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-08-04 18:45 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-04 18:42 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-02 15:14 ` [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 02/14] rcu/nocb: Add bypass callback queueing Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-07 0:03 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-08-07 0:16 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-08-07 0:35 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-07 0:40 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-08-07 1:17 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-07 1:24 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-08-07 3:47 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-02 15:14 ` [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 03/14] rcu/nocb: EXP Check use and usefulness of ->nocb_lock_contended Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-02 15:14 ` [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 04/14] rcu/nocb: Print no-CBs diagnostics when rcutorture writer unduly delayed Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-02 15:14 ` [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 05/14] rcu/nocb: Avoid synchronous wakeup in __call_rcu_nocb_wake() Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-02 15:14 ` [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 06/14] rcu/nocb: Advance CBs after merge in rcutree_migrate_callbacks() Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-02 15:14 ` [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 07/14] rcu/nocb: Reduce nocb_cb_wait() leaf rcu_node ->lock contention Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-02 15:14 ` [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 08/14] rcu/nocb: Reduce __call_rcu_nocb_wake() " Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-02 15:14 ` [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 09/14] rcu/nocb: Don't wake no-CBs GP kthread if timer posted under overload Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-02 15:14 ` [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 10/14] rcu: Allow rcu_do_batch() to dynamically adjust batch sizes Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-02 15:14 ` [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 11/14] EXP nohz: Add TICK_DEP_BIT_RCU Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-02 15:14 ` [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 12/14] rcu/nohz: Force on tick when invoking lots of callbacks Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-02 15:15 ` [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 13/14] rcutorture: Force on tick for readers and callback flooders Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-02 15:15 ` [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 14/14] rcu/nohz: Make multi_cpu_stop() enable tick on all online CPUs Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-04 14:43 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-08-04 14:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-08-04 18:41 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-04 20:24 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-05 4:19 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-05 8:07 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-08-05 14:47 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-05 8:05 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-08-05 14:54 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-05 15:50 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-08-05 17:48 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-06 18:08 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-07 21:41 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-08 20:35 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-08 21:30 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-09 16:51 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-09 18:07 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-08-09 18:39 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-12 21:02 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2019-08-12 23:23 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-13 1:33 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-08-13 12:30 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2019-08-13 14:48 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-14 17:55 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-08-14 22:05 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-15 15:07 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-08-15 17:23 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-15 18:15 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-08-15 18:39 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-15 19:42 ` Joel Fernandes [this message]
2019-08-13 21:06 ` 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=20190815194257.GA23194@google.com \
--to=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=dipankar@in.ibm.com \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=frederic@kernel.org \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=jiangshanlai@gmail.com \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=paulmck@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rcu@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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).