Re: linux-next: Tree for May 26 (RCU stalls)
From: Paul E. McKenney
Date: Thu May 26 2011 - 16:58:13 EST
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 08:31:28PM +0200, Sedat Dilek wrote:
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 7:31 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 05:48:32PM +0200, Sedat Dilek wrote:
> >> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 8:39 AM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > Hi all,
> >> >
> >> > [The kernel.org mirroring is being slow today]
> >> >
> >> > Changes since 20110525:
> >> >
> >> > Linus' tree gained a build failure for which I applied a patch.
> >> >
> >> > The m68knommu tree lost its conflicts.
> >> >
> >> > The hwmon-staging lost its conflict.
> >> >
> >> > The wireless lost its conflict.
> >> >
> >> > The mmc lost its conflict.
> >> >
> >> > The dwmw2-iommu tree lost its conflict.
> >> >
> >> > The kvm tree still had its build failure so I used the version from
> >> > next-20110524.
> >> >
> >> > The namespace lost its conflicts.
> >> >
> >> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I see these call-traces on x86 UP machine:
> >>
> >> [ 240.268061] INFO: task rcun0:8 blocked for more than 120 seconds.
> >> [ 240.268069] "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs"
> >> disables this message.
> >> [ 240.268072] rcun0 D 00000000 0 8 2 0x00000000
> >> [ 240.268079] f6473fb8 00000046 013131b6 00000000 c1461ac0 00000000
> >> 00000000 c1461ac0
> >> [ 240.268089] 00000000 00000000 f645dc70 f645bf60 00000003 f6473f78
> >> c102a570 f6473f9c
> >> [ 240.268097] c1021476 00000000 f645bf6c 00000001 00000000 00000286
> >> f6473f9c c129b35a
> >> [ 240.268106] Call Trace:
> >> [ 240.268121] [<c102a570>] ? default_wake_function+0xb/0xd
> >> [ 240.268127] [<c1021476>] ? __wake_up_common+0x33/0x5b
> >> [ 240.268134] [<c129b35a>] ? _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0xe/0x10
> >> [ 240.268140] [<c10234ed>] ? complete+0x34/0x3e
> >> [ 240.268147] [<c1074d23>] ? cpumask_weight+0xc/0xc
> >> [ 240.268157] [<c1044c97>] kthread+0x53/0x67
> >> [ 240.268162] [<c1044c44>] ? kthread_worker_fn+0x111/0x111
> >> [ 240.268169] [<c12a123e>] kernel_thread_helper+0x6/0xd
> >>
> >> dmesg and kernel-config are attached.
> >
> > Hello, Sedat,
> >
> > Does the following patch clear things up?
> >
> > Thanx, Paul
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > rcu: Start RCU kthreads in TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE state
> >
> > Upon creation, kthreads are in TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE state, which can
> > result in softlockup warnings. Because some of RCU's kthreads can
> > legitimately be idle indefinitely, start them in TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE
> > state in order to avoid those warnings.
> >
> > Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paul.mckenney@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Tested-by: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/rcutree.c b/kernel/rcutree.c
> > index a1a8bb6..40aab8d 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcutree.c
> > +++ b/kernel/rcutree.c
> > @@ -1647,6 +1647,7 @@ static int __cpuinit rcu_spawn_one_cpu_kthread(int cpu)
> > if (IS_ERR(t))
> > return PTR_ERR(t);
> > kthread_bind(t, cpu);
> > + set_task_state(t, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> > per_cpu(rcu_cpu_kthread_cpu, cpu) = cpu;
> > WARN_ON_ONCE(per_cpu(rcu_cpu_kthread_task, cpu) != NULL);
> > per_cpu(rcu_cpu_kthread_task, cpu) = t;
> > @@ -1754,6 +1755,7 @@ static int __cpuinit rcu_spawn_one_node_kthread(struct rcu_state *rsp,
> > if (IS_ERR(t))
> > return PTR_ERR(t);
> > raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&rnp->lock, flags);
> > + set_task_state(t, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> > rnp->node_kthread_task = t;
> > raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rnp->lock, flags);
> > sp.sched_priority = 99;
> > diff --git a/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h
> > index 049f278..a767b7d 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h
> > +++ b/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h
> > @@ -1295,6 +1295,7 @@ static int __cpuinit rcu_spawn_one_boost_kthread(struct rcu_state *rsp,
> > if (IS_ERR(t))
> > return PTR_ERR(t);
> > raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&rnp->lock, flags);
> > + set_task_state(t, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> > rnp->boost_kthread_task = t;
> > raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rnp->lock, flags);
> > sp.sched_priority = RCU_KTHREAD_PRIO;
> >
>
> Thanks for the quick reply and patch!
>
> On 1st look at dmesg the RCU stalls are gone.
> I tested against linux-next (next-20110526).
>
> Feel free to add:
>
> Tested-by: Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@xxxxxxxxx>
Thank you for testing, Sedat!
Thanx, Paul
--
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/