Re: [PATCH 2/2] timer: really raise softirq if there is irq_work todo

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 12:07:57PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Jan 2014 15:34:05 +0100
> Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > from looking at the code, it seems that the softirq is only raised (in
> > the !base->active_timers case) if we have also an expired timer
> > (time_before_eq() is true). This patch ensures that the timer softirq is
> > also raised in the !base->active_timers && no timer expired.
> 
> A couple of things. If there is no active timers, we do not need to
> check the expired timers. That may contain a deferred timer that does
> not need to be raised if the system is idle. This will just
> re-introduce the problems that other people have been seeing.
> 
> The bug that I found is that if there *are* active timers, but they
> have not expired yet. Why is this a problem? Because in that case we do
> not check if there is irq_work to be done. That means the irq_work will
> have to wait till the timer expires, and since RCU depends on this,
> that can take a while. I've had a synchronize_sched() take up to 5
> seconds to complete due to this!
> 
> 
> The real fix is the following:
> 
> timer/rt: Always raise the softirq if there's irq_work to be done
> 
> It was previously discovered that some systems would hang on boot up
> with a previous version of 3.12-rt. This was due to RCU using irq_work,
> and RT defers the irq_work to a softirq. But if there's no active
> timers, the softirq will not be raised, and RCU work will not get done,
> causing the system to hang.  The fix was to check that if there was no
> active timers but irq_work to be done, then we should raise the softirq.
> 
> But this fix was not 100% correct. It left out the case that there were
> active timers that were not expired yet. This would have the softirq
> not get raised even if there was irq work to be done.
> 
> If there is irq_work to be done, then we must raise the timer softirq
> regardless of if there is active timers or whether they are expired or
> not. The softirq can handle those cases. But we can never ignore
> irq_work.
> 
> As it is only PREEMPT_RT_FULL that requires irq_work to be done in the
> softirq, we can pull out the check in the active_timers condition, and
> make the code a bit cleaner by having the irq_work check separate, and
> put the code in with the other #ifdef PREEMPT_RT. If there is irq_work
> to be done, there's no need to check the active timers or if they are
> expired. Just raise the time softirq and be done with it. Otherwise, we
> can do the timer checks just like we do with non -rt.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/timer.c b/kernel/timer.c
> index 106968f..426d114 100644
> --- a/kernel/timer.c
> +++ b/kernel/timer.c
> @@ -1461,18 +1461,20 @@ void run_local_timers(void)
>  	 * the timer softirq.
>  	 */
>  #ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT_FULL
> +	/* On RT, irq work runs from softirq */
> +	if (irq_work_needs_cpu()) {
> +		raise_softirq(TIMER_SOFTIRQ);

OK, I'll bite...  What if the IRQ work that needs doing is something
other than TIMER_SOFTIRQ?

							Thanx, Paul

> +		return;
> +	}
> +
>  	if (!spin_do_trylock(&base->lock)) {
>  		raise_softirq(TIMER_SOFTIRQ);
>  		return;
>  	}
>  #endif
> -	if (!base->active_timers) {
> -#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT_FULL
> -		/* On RT, irq work runs from softirq */
> -		if (!irq_work_needs_cpu())
> -#endif
> -			goto out;
> -	}
> +
> +	if (!base->active_timers)
> +		goto out;
> 
>  	/* Check whether the next pending timer has expired */
>  	if (time_before_eq(base->next_timer, jiffies))
> 

--
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/