Re: [PATCH] rcu: Make jiffies_till_sched_qs writable

From: Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: Byungchul Park <max.byungchul.park@gmail.com>,
	Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>,
	rcu <rcu@vger.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	kernel-team@lge.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcu: Make jiffies_till_sched_qs writable
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 12:15:51 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAEXW_YTsNNySKbDU12ZeidXQ0GrWqaTKbVUym3kFfnKeV44Tug@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAEXW_YTcL-nOfJXkChGhvQtqqfSLpAYr327PLu1SmGEEADCevw@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 12:14 PM Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org> wrote:
>
> Trimming the list a bit to keep my noise level low,
>
> On Sat, Jul 13, 2019 at 1:41 PM Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> [snip]
> > > It still feels like you guys are hyperfocusing on this one particular
> > > > knob.  I instead need you to look at the interrelating knobs as a group.
> > >
> > > Thanks for the hints, we'll do that.
> > >
> > > > On the debugging side, suppose someone gives you an RCU bug report.
> > > > What information will you need?  How can you best get that information
> > > > without excessive numbers of over-and-back interactions with the guy
> > > > reporting the bug?  As part of this last question, what information is
> > > > normally supplied with the bug?  Alternatively, what information are
> > > > bug reporters normally expected to provide when asked?
> > >
> > > I suppose I could dig out some of our Android bug reports of the past where
> > > there were RCU issues but if there's any fires you are currently fighting do
> > > send it our way as debugging homework ;-)
> >
> >   Suppose that you were getting RCU CPU stall
> > warnings featuring multi_cpu_stop() called from cpu_stopper_thread().
> > Of course, this really means that some other CPU/task is holding up
> > multi_cpu_stop() without also blocking the current grace period.
> >
>
> So I took a shot at this trying to learn how CPU stoppers work in
> relation to this problem.
>
> I am assuming here say CPU X has entered MULTI_STOP_DISABLE_IRQ state
> in multi_cpu_stop() but another CPU Y has not yet entered this state.
> So CPU X is stalling RCU but it is really because of CPU Y. Now in the
> problem statement, you mentioned CPU Y is not holding up the grace
> period, which means Y doesn't have any of IRQ, BH or preemption
> disabled ; but is still somehow stalling RCU indirectly by troubling
> X.
>
> This can only happen if :
> - CPU Y has a thread executing on it that is higher priority than CPU
> X's stopper thread which prevents it from getting scheduled. - but the

Sorry, here I meant "higher priority than CPU Y's stopper thread".