Re: [Bug #12650] Strange load average and ksoftirqd behavior with2.6.29-rc2-git1

[Ingo Molnar]

* Damien Wyart <damien.wyart@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> * Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> [090216 10:50]:
> > hm, we need a trace with both abstime and process information included:
> 
> >   echo funcgraph-proc     > trace_options
> >   echo funcgraph-abstime  > trace_options
> 
> > Also, at 140 msecs the duration is a bit short - could you please make a 
> > 1-2 seconds capture? You can do that by increasing the number in 
> > buffer_size_kb 10-fold:
> 
> >    echo 14100 > buffer_size_kb 
> 
> Ok, I've redone a trace with these options enabled. The file is here:
> http://damien.wyart.free.fr/ksoftirqd_pb/trace_tip_2009.02.16_ksoftirqd_pb_abstime_proc.txt.gz

ok, here's the new annotated trace:

  799.555279 |   1)  ksoftir-2324  |               |  do_softirq() {
  799.555279 |   1)  ksoftir-2324  |               |    __do_softirq() {
  799.555280 |   1)  ksoftir-2324  |               |      /* #1 softirq pending: 00000100 */
  799.555281 |   1)  ksoftir-2324  |               |      /* #2 softirq pending: 00000000 */
  799.555282 |   1)  ksoftir-2324  |               |      rcu_process_callbacks() {
  799.555282 |   1)  ksoftir-2324  |               |        __rcu_process_callbacks() {
  799.555283 |   1)  ksoftir-2324  |   0.479 us    |          force_quiescent_state();
  799.555284 |   1)  ksoftir-2324  |   1.576 us    |        }
  799.555284 |   1)  ksoftir-2324  |               |        __rcu_process_callbacks() {
  799.555285 |   1)  ksoftir-2324  |               |          force_quiescent_state() {
  799.555286 |   1)  ksoftir-2324  |               |          cpu_quiet() {
  799.555286 |   1)  ksoftir-2324  |   0.518 us    |            _spin_lock_irqsave();
  799.555287 |   1)  ksoftir-2324  |   0.506 us    |            _spin_unlock_irqrestore();
  799.555288 |   1)  ksoftir-2324  |   2.563 us    |          }
  799.555289 |   1)  ksoftir-2324  |   4.624 us    |        }
  799.555289 |   1)  ksoftir-2324  |   7.836 us    |      }
  799.555290 |   1)  ksoftir-2324  |   0.495 us    |      _local_bh_enable();
  799.555291 |   1)  ksoftir-2324  | + 11.550 us   |    }
  799.555291 |   1)  ksoftir-2324  | + 12.713 us   |  }
  799.555292 |   1)  ksoftir-2324  |   0.524 us    |  _cond_resched();

We do get 0x100 which is 1 << RCU_SOFTIRQ, i.e. the RCU softirq. Paul, 
this indeed seems to be a CONFIG_TREE_RCU=y bug.

What is weird is that RCU_SOFTIRQ gets set again and again - but there's 
no raise_softirq() calls. Could you please do a two-CPU trace too via:

   echo 3 > /debug/tracing/tracing_cpumask

So that we can see what's happening on the other CPU?

Also, could you please apply the debug patch below (or update to the 
very latest -tip tree), so that we get trace entries of softirq triggers 
too?

Thanks,

	Ingo

-------------->