Re: Soft lockup regression from today's sched.git merge.
From: Ingo Molnar
Date: Tue Apr 22 2008 - 05:15:32 EST
* David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The following commit:
>
> commit 27ec4407790d075c325e1f4da0a19c56953cce23
> Author: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx>
> Date: Thu Feb 28 21:00:21 2008 +0100
>
> sched: make cpu_clock() globally synchronous
>
> Alexey Zaytsev reported (and bisected) that the introduction of
> cpu_clock() in printk made the timestamps jump back and forth.
>
> Make cpu_clock() more reliable while still keeping it fast when it's
> called frequently.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx>
>
> causes watchdog triggers when a cpu exits NOHZ state when it has been
> there for >= the soft lockup threshold, for example here are some
> messages from a 128 cpu Niagara2 box:
>
> [ 168.106406] BUG: soft lockup - CPU#11 stuck for 128s! [dd:3239]
> [ 168.989592] BUG: soft lockup - CPU#21 stuck for 86s! [swapper:0]
> [ 168.999587] BUG: soft lockup - CPU#29 stuck for 91s! [make:4511]
> [ 168.999615] BUG: soft lockup - CPU#2 stuck for 85s! [swapper:0]
> [ 169.020514] BUG: soft lockup - CPU#37 stuck for 91s! [swapper:0]
> [ 169.020514] BUG: soft lockup - CPU#45 stuck for 91s! [sh:4515]
> [ 169.020515] BUG: soft lockup - CPU#69 stuck for 92s! [swapper:0]
> [ 169.020515] BUG: soft lockup - CPU#77 stuck for 92s! [swapper:0]
> [ 169.020515] BUG: soft lockup - CPU#61 stuck for 92s! [swapper:0]
> [ 169.112554] BUG: soft lockup - CPU#85 stuck for 92s! [swapper:0]
> [ 169.112554] BUG: soft lockup - CPU#101 stuck for 92s! [swapper:0]
> [ 169.112554] BUG: soft lockup - CPU#109 stuck for 92s! [swapper:0]
> [ 169.112554] BUG: soft lockup - CPU#117 stuck for 92s! [swapper:0]
> [ 169.171483] BUG: soft lockup - CPU#40 stuck for 80s! [dd:3239]
> [ 169.331483] BUG: soft lockup - CPU#13 stuck for 86s! [swapper:0]
> [ 169.351500] BUG: soft lockup - CPU#43 stuck for 101s! [dd:3239]
> [ 169.531482] BUG: soft lockup - CPU#9 stuck for 129s! [mkdir:4565]
> [ 169.595754] BUG: soft lockup - CPU#20 stuck for 93s! [swapper:0]
> [ 169.626787] BUG: soft lockup - CPU#52 stuck for 93s! [swapper:0]
> [ 169.626787] BUG: soft lockup - CPU#84 stuck for 92s! [swapper:0]
> [ 169.636812] BUG: soft lockup - CPU#116 stuck for 94s! [swapper:0]
>
> It's simple enough to trigger this by doing a 10 minute sleep after a
> fresh bootup then starting a parallel kernel build.
>
> I suspect this might be reintroducing a problem we've had and fixed
> before, see the thread:
>
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=119546414004065&w=2
yeah, it looks very similar.
> Please have a look, thank you.
thanks for reporting it. I havent seen this false positive happen in a
long time - but then again, PC CPUs are a lot less idle than a 128-CPU
Niagara2 :-/ I'm wondering what the best method would be to provoke a
CPU to stay idle that long - to make sure this bug is fixed.
so i only have the untested patch below for now - does it fix the bug
for you?
Ingo
----------------------------------->
Subject: softlockup: fix NOHZ wakeup
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx>
David Miller reported:
|--------------->
the following commit:
| commit 27ec4407790d075c325e1f4da0a19c56953cce23
| Author: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx>
| Date: Thu Feb 28 21:00:21 2008 +0100
|
| sched: make cpu_clock() globally synchronous
|
| Alexey Zaytsev reported (and bisected) that the introduction of
| cpu_clock() in printk made the timestamps jump back and forth.
|
| Make cpu_clock() more reliable while still keeping it fast when it's
| called frequently.
|
| Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx>
causes watchdog triggers when a cpu exits NOHZ state when it has been
there for >= the soft lockup threshold, for example here are some
messages from a 128 cpu Niagara2 box:
[ 168.106406] BUG: soft lockup - CPU#11 stuck for 128s! [dd:3239]
[ 168.989592] BUG: soft lockup - CPU#21 stuck for 86s! [swapper:0]
[ 168.999587] BUG: soft lockup - CPU#29 stuck for 91s! [make:4511]
[ 168.999615] BUG: soft lockup - CPU#2 stuck for 85s! [swapper:0]
[ 169.020514] BUG: soft lockup - CPU#37 stuck for 91s! [swapper:0]
[ 169.020514] BUG: soft lockup - CPU#45 stuck for 91s! [sh:4515]
[ 169.020515] BUG: soft lockup - CPU#69 stuck for 92s! [swapper:0]
[ 169.020515] BUG: soft lockup - CPU#77 stuck for 92s! [swapper:0]
[ 169.020515] BUG: soft lockup - CPU#61 stuck for 92s! [swapper:0]
[ 169.112554] BUG: soft lockup - CPU#85 stuck for 92s! [swapper:0]
[ 169.112554] BUG: soft lockup - CPU#101 stuck for 92s! [swapper:0]
[ 169.112554] BUG: soft lockup - CPU#109 stuck for 92s! [swapper:0]
[ 169.112554] BUG: soft lockup - CPU#117 stuck for 92s! [swapper:0]
[ 169.171483] BUG: soft lockup - CPU#40 stuck for 80s! [dd:3239]
[ 169.331483] BUG: soft lockup - CPU#13 stuck for 86s! [swapper:0]
[ 169.351500] BUG: soft lockup - CPU#43 stuck for 101s! [dd:3239]
[ 169.531482] BUG: soft lockup - CPU#9 stuck for 129s! [mkdir:4565]
[ 169.595754] BUG: soft lockup - CPU#20 stuck for 93s! [swapper:0]
[ 169.626787] BUG: soft lockup - CPU#52 stuck for 93s! [swapper:0]
[ 169.626787] BUG: soft lockup - CPU#84 stuck for 92s! [swapper:0]
[ 169.636812] BUG: soft lockup - CPU#116 stuck for 94s! [swapper:0]
It's simple enough to trigger this by doing a 10 minute sleep after a
fresh bootup then starting a parallel kernel build.
I suspect this might be reintroducing a problem we've had and fixed
before, see the thread:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=119546414004065&w=2
<---------------|
touch the softlockup watchdog when exiting NOHZ state - we are
obviously not locked up.
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx>
---
kernel/time/tick-sched.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
Index: linux/kernel/time/tick-sched.c
===================================================================
--- linux.orig/kernel/time/tick-sched.c
+++ linux/kernel/time/tick-sched.c
@@ -393,6 +393,7 @@ void tick_nohz_restart_sched_tick(void)
sub_preempt_count(HARDIRQ_OFFSET);
}
+ touch_softlockup_watchdog();
/*
* Cancel the scheduled timer and restore the tick
*/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/