Re: kernel BUG at kernel/sched_rt.c:322!

[Zhang, Yanmin]

On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 05:31 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 09, 2008 at 07:06:38AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, 2008-10-08 at 18:14 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > When I enable:
> > > 
> > > 	CONFIG_GROUP_SCHED=y
> > > 	CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED=y
> > > 	CONFIG_USER_SCHED=y
> > > 
> > > and run a bash script onlining and offlining CPUs in an infinite loop
> > > on x86 using 2.6.27-rc9, after about 1.5 hours I get the following.
Paul,

Wuld you like to share your scipt? I tested cpu hotplug on my 8-core machine by
unplug cpu 2~5 and plug them in a loop for one night and didn't trigger the issue.

Did you set CONFIG_RT_GROUP_SCHED=y?

> > > 
> > > On the off-chance that this is new news...
> > 
> > Hmm, yes. I thought I had all those fixed :-(
> 
> I know that feeling!!!  ;-)
> 
> > > 	[ 5538.091011] kernel BUG at kernel/sched_rt.c:322!
> > > 	[ 5538.091011] invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] SMP 
> > > 	[ 5538.091011] Modules linked in:
> > > 	[ 5538.091011] 
> > > 	[ 5538.091011] Pid: 2819, comm: sh Not tainted (2.6.27-rc9-autokern1 #1)
> > > 	[ 5538.091011] EIP: 0060:[<c011c287>] EFLAGS: 00010002 CPU: 7
> > > 	[ 5538.091011] EIP is at __disable_runtime+0x1c7/0x1d0
> > > 	[ 5538.091011] EAX: c9056eec EBX: 00000001 ECX: 00000008 EDX: 00006060
> > > 	[ 5538.091011] ESI: 02faf080 EDI: 00000000 EBP: f6df7cd0 ESP: f6df7ca8
> > > 	[ 5538.091011]  DS: 007b ES: 007b FS: 00d8 GS: 0033 SS: 0068
> > > 	[ 5538.091011] Process sh (pid: 2819, ti=f6df6000 task=f6cbdc00 task.ti=f6df6000)
> > > 	[ 5538.091011] Stack: f68c8004 c9056eec f68c8000 c9056b98 00000008 5d353631 c04d0020 c9056b00 
> > > 	[ 5538.091011]        c9056b00 c9056b00 f6df7cdc c011d151 c037dfc0 f6df7cec c011aedb f68c8000 
> > > 	[ 5538.091011]        c04d2200 f6df7d04 c011f967 00000282 00000000 00000000 00000000 f6df7e48 
> > > 	[ 5538.091011] Call Trace:
> > > 	[ 5538.091011]  [<c011d151>] ? rq_offline_rt+0x21/0x60
> > > 	[ 5538.091011]  [<c011aedb>] ? set_rq_offline+0x2b/0x50
> > > 	[ 5538.091011]  [<c011f967>] ? rq_attach_root+0xa7/0xb0
> > > 	[ 5538.091011]  [<c0120bbf>] ? cpu_attach_domain+0x30f/0x490
> > 
> > At the very least we're doing part of the offline process twice it
> > seems, once through set_rq_offline()/set_rq_online() and once through
> > disable_runtime()/enabled_runtime().
> > 
> > But seeing as we set an offlined cpu's runtime to RUNTIME_INF and skip
> > cpus with RUNTIME_INF runtime that should be harmless.
> 
> Would double-processing a non-offlined CPU cause trouble, perhaps
> setting the runtime to a nonsensical value?
> 
> > Modifications to rt_rq->rt_runtime are all done while holding
> > rt_b->rt_runtime_lock and rt_rq->rt_runtime_lock (do_balance_runtime()
> > and __disable_runtime() and __enable_runtime()). Which means its enough
> > to hold either of those locks in order to get a stable reading of the
> > value.
These locks, especially ïrt_b->rt_runtime_lock, prevent the simultaneous
changing of ïrt_runtime. It looks codes are ok.

Anything related to RCU?

> > 
> > Which leaves me puzzled for the moment...
> 
> I know that feeling as well...
> 
> > tip/master has the following commit to clarify the code somewhat:
> > 
> > 
> > commit 78333cdd0e472180743d35988e576d6ecc6f6ddb
> > Author: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Date:   Tue Sep 23 15:33:43 2008 +0200
> > 
> >     sched: add some comments to the bandwidth code
> >     
> >     Hopefully clarify some of this code a little.
> >     
> >     Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx>
> >     Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx>
> > 
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched_rt.c b/kernel/sched_rt.c
> > index 2e228bd..d570a8c 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched_rt.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched_rt.c
> > @@ -231,6 +231,9 @@ static inline struct rt_bandwidth *sched_rt_bandwidth(struct rt_rq *rt_rq)
> >  #endif /* CONFIG_RT_GROUP_SCHED */
> > 
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> > +/*
> > + * We ran out of runtime, see if we can borrow some from our neighbours.
> > + */
> 
> Suppose that all CPUs nearby have run out of runtime.  Or is that
> possible?
> 
> 							Thanx, Paul
> 
> >  static int do_balance_runtime(struct rt_rq *rt_rq)
> >  {
> >  	struct rt_bandwidth *rt_b = sched_rt_bandwidth(rt_rq);
> > @@ -250,9 +253,18 @@ static int do_balance_runtime(struct rt_rq *rt_rq)
> >  			continue;
> > 
> >  		spin_lock(&iter->rt_runtime_lock);
> > +		/*
> > +		 * Either all rqs have inf runtime and there's nothing to steal
> > +		 * or __disable_runtime() below sets a specific rq to inf to
> > +		 * indicate its been disabled and disalow stealing.
> > +		 */
> >  		if (iter->rt_runtime == RUNTIME_INF)
> >  			goto next;
> > 
> > +		/*
> > +		 * From runqueues with spare time, take 1/n part of their
> > +		 * spare time, but no more than our period.
> > +		 */
> >  		diff = iter->rt_runtime - iter->rt_time;
> >  		if (diff > 0) {
> >  			diff = div_u64((u64)diff, weight);
> > @@ -274,6 +286,9 @@ next:
> >  	return more;
> >  }
> > 
> > +/*
> > + * Ensure this RQ takes back all the runtime it lend to its neighbours.
> > + */
> >  static void __disable_runtime(struct rq *rq)
> >  {
> >  	struct root_domain *rd = rq->rd;
> > @@ -289,17 +304,33 @@ static void __disable_runtime(struct rq *rq)
> > 
> >  		spin_lock(&rt_b->rt_runtime_lock);
> >  		spin_lock(&rt_rq->rt_runtime_lock);
> > +		/*
> > +		 * Either we're all inf and nobody needs to borrow, or we're
> > +		 * already disabled and thus have nothing to do, or we have
> > +		 * exactly the right amount of runtime to take out.
> > +		 */
> >  		if (rt_rq->rt_runtime == RUNTIME_INF ||
> >  				rt_rq->rt_runtime == rt_b->rt_runtime)
> >  			goto balanced;
> >  		spin_unlock(&rt_rq->rt_runtime_lock);
> > 
> > +		/*
> > +		 * Calculate the difference between what we started out with
> > +		 * and what we current have, that's the amount of runtime
> > +		 * we lend and now have to reclaim.
> > +		 */
> >  		want = rt_b->rt_runtime - rt_rq->rt_runtime;
> > 
> > +		/*
> > +		 * Greedy reclaim, take back as much as we can.
> > +		 */
> >  		for_each_cpu_mask(i, rd->span) {
> >  			struct rt_rq *iter = sched_rt_period_rt_rq(rt_b, i);
> >  			s64 diff;
> > 
> > +			/*
> > +			 * Can't reclaim from ourselves or disabled runqueues.
> > +			 */
> >  			if (iter == rt_rq || iter->rt_runtime == RUNTIME_INF)
> >  				continue;
> > 
> > @@ -319,8 +350,16 @@ static void __disable_runtime(struct rq *rq)
> >  		}
> > 
> >  		spin_lock(&rt_rq->rt_runtime_lock);
> > +		/*
> > +		 * We cannot be left wanting - that would mean some runtime
> > +		 * leaked out of the system.
> > +		 */
> >  		BUG_ON(want);
> >  balanced:
> > +		/*
> > +		 * Disable all the borrow logic by pretending we have inf
> > +		 * runtime - in which case borrowing doesn't make sense.
> > +		 */
> >  		rt_rq->rt_runtime = RUNTIME_INF;
> >  		spin_unlock(&rt_rq->rt_runtime_lock);
> >  		spin_unlock(&rt_b->rt_runtime_lock);
> > @@ -343,6 +382,9 @@ static void __enable_runtime(struct rq *rq)
> >  	if (unlikely(!scheduler_running))
> >  		return;
> > 
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Reset each runqueue's bandwidth settings
> > +	 */
> >  	for_each_leaf_rt_rq(rt_rq, rq) {
> >  		struct rt_bandwidth *rt_b = sched_rt_bandwidth(rt_rq);


--
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/