Re: Commit 35ce7f29a breaks hibernation for XPS 13

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 02:03:44PM -0400, Eric B Munson wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Oct 2014, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 08:10:21AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 09:47:57AM -0400, Eric B Munson wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 24 Oct 2014, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > 
> > [ . . . ]
> > 
> > > > > > Still didn't help.  If it helps, when I attempt to reboot after trying
> > > > > > to hibernate I see a kworker thread hung and get the stack trace below
> > > > > > from that thread.  I assume this is the same thread that is holding up
> > > > > > the hibernate.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Yep, looks like something that some other people are running into as well.
> > > > > 
> > > > > If you turn off CONFIG_RCU_NOCB_CPU, do you still get the failure?
> > > > 
> > > > Disabling CONFIG_RCU_NOCB_CPU fixes the problem.  I am able to hibernate
> > > > and resume successfully.
> > > 
> > > Very good!  Then the fix I am working on might actually be a fix.  ;-)
> > 
> > And here is a patch that passes preliminary testing at my end.  Does it
> > help at your end?
> > 
> > 							Thanx, Paul
> 
> Thanks Paul, that fixed it for me.  Feel free to add my Tested-by: to
> the patch.

Woo-hoo!!!  ;-)

I added your Tested-by, and thank you for your reporting and testing
for this bug!

							Thanx, Paul

> Eric
> 
> > 
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > rcu: Make rcu_barrier() understand about missing rcuo kthreads
> > 
> > Commit 35ce7f29a44a (rcu: Create rcuo kthreads only for onlined CPUs)
> > avoids creating rcuo kthreads for CPUs that never come online.  This
> > fixes a bug in many instances of firmware: Instead of lying about their
> > age, these systems instead lie about the number of CPUs that they have.
> > Before commit 35ce7f29a44a, this could result in huge numbers of useless
> > rcuo kthreads being created.
> > 
> > It appears that experience indicates that I should have told the
> > people suffering from this problem to fix their broken firmware, but
> > I instead produced what turned out to be a partial fix.   The missing
> > piece supplied by this commit makes sure that rcu_barrier() knows not to
> > post callbacks for no-CBs CPUs that have not yet come online, because
> > otherwise rcu_barrier() will hang on systems having firmware that lies
> > about the number of CPUs.
> > 
> > It is tempting to simply have rcu_barrier() refuse to post a callback on
> > any no-CBs CPU that does not have an rcuo kthread.  This unfortunately
> > does not work because rcu_barrier() is required to wait for all pending
> > callbacks.  It is therefore required to wait even for those callbacks
> > that cannot possibly be invoked.  Even if doing so hangs the system.
> > 
> > Given that posting a callback to a no-CBs CPU that does not yet have an
> > rcuo kthread can hang rcu_barrier(), It is tempting to report an error
> > in this case.  Unfortunately, this will result in false positives at
> > boot time, when it is perfectly legal to post callbacks to the boot CPU
> > before the scheduler has started, in other words, before it is legal
> > to invoke rcu_barrier().
> > 
> > So this commit instead has rcu_barrier() avoid posting callbacks to
> > CPUs having neither rcuo kthread nor pending callbacks, and has it
> > complain bitterly if it finds CPUs having no rcuo kthread but some
> > pending callbacks.  And when rcu_barrier() does find CPUs having no rcuo
> > kthread but pending callbacks, as noted earlier, it has no choice but
> > to hang indefinitely.
> > 
> > Reported-by: Yanko Kaneti <yaneti@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Reported-by: Jay Vosburgh <jay.vosburgh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Reported-by: Eric B Munson <emunson@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > diff --git a/include/trace/events/rcu.h b/include/trace/events/rcu.h
> > index aa8e5eea3ab4..c78e88ce5ea3 100644
> > --- a/include/trace/events/rcu.h
> > +++ b/include/trace/events/rcu.h
> > @@ -660,18 +660,18 @@ TRACE_EVENT(rcu_torture_read,
> >  /*
> >   * Tracepoint for _rcu_barrier() execution.  The string "s" describes
> >   * the _rcu_barrier phase:
> > - *	"Begin": rcu_barrier_callback() started.
> > - *	"Check": rcu_barrier_callback() checking for piggybacking.
> > - *	"EarlyExit": rcu_barrier_callback() piggybacked, thus early exit.
> > - *	"Inc1": rcu_barrier_callback() piggyback check counter incremented.
> > - *	"Offline": rcu_barrier_callback() found offline CPU
> > - *	"OnlineNoCB": rcu_barrier_callback() found online no-CBs CPU.
> > - *	"OnlineQ": rcu_barrier_callback() found online CPU with callbacks.
> > - *	"OnlineNQ": rcu_barrier_callback() found online CPU, no callbacks.
> > + *	"Begin": _rcu_barrier() started.
> > + *	"Check": _rcu_barrier() checking for piggybacking.
> > + *	"EarlyExit": _rcu_barrier() piggybacked, thus early exit.
> > + *	"Inc1": _rcu_barrier() piggyback check counter incremented.
> > + *	"OfflineNoCB": _rcu_barrier() found callback on never-online CPU
> > + *	"OnlineNoCB": _rcu_barrier() found online no-CBs CPU.
> > + *	"OnlineQ": _rcu_barrier() found online CPU with callbacks.
> > + *	"OnlineNQ": _rcu_barrier() found online CPU, no callbacks.
> >   *	"IRQ": An rcu_barrier_callback() callback posted on remote CPU.
> >   *	"CB": An rcu_barrier_callback() invoked a callback, not the last.
> >   *	"LastCB": An rcu_barrier_callback() invoked the last callback.
> > - *	"Inc2": rcu_barrier_callback() piggyback check counter incremented.
> > + *	"Inc2": _rcu_barrier() piggyback check counter incremented.
> >   * The "cpu" argument is the CPU or -1 if meaningless, the "cnt" argument
> >   * is the count of remaining callbacks, and "done" is the piggybacking count.
> >   */
> > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > index f6880052b917..7680fc275036 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > @@ -3312,11 +3312,16 @@ static void _rcu_barrier(struct rcu_state *rsp)
> >  			continue;
> >  		rdp = per_cpu_ptr(rsp->rda, cpu);
> >  		if (rcu_is_nocb_cpu(cpu)) {
> > -			_rcu_barrier_trace(rsp, "OnlineNoCB", cpu,
> > -					   rsp->n_barrier_done);
> > -			atomic_inc(&rsp->barrier_cpu_count);
> > -			__call_rcu(&rdp->barrier_head, rcu_barrier_callback,
> > -				   rsp, cpu, 0);
> > +			if (!rcu_nocb_cpu_needs_barrier(rsp, cpu)) {
> > +				_rcu_barrier_trace(rsp, "OfflineNoCB", cpu,
> > +						   rsp->n_barrier_done);
> > +			} else {
> > +				_rcu_barrier_trace(rsp, "OnlineNoCB", cpu,
> > +						   rsp->n_barrier_done);
> > +				atomic_inc(&rsp->barrier_cpu_count);
> > +				__call_rcu(&rdp->barrier_head,
> > +					   rcu_barrier_callback, rsp, cpu, 0);
> > +			}
> >  		} else if (ACCESS_ONCE(rdp->qlen)) {
> >  			_rcu_barrier_trace(rsp, "OnlineQ", cpu,
> >  					   rsp->n_barrier_done);
> > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.h b/kernel/rcu/tree.h
> > index 4beab3d2328c..8e7b1843896e 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.h
> > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.h
> > @@ -587,6 +587,7 @@ static void print_cpu_stall_info(struct rcu_state *rsp, int cpu);
> >  static void print_cpu_stall_info_end(void);
> >  static void zero_cpu_stall_ticks(struct rcu_data *rdp);
> >  static void increment_cpu_stall_ticks(void);
> > +static bool rcu_nocb_cpu_needs_barrier(struct rcu_state *rsp, int cpu);
> >  static void rcu_nocb_gp_set(struct rcu_node *rnp, int nrq);
> >  static void rcu_nocb_gp_cleanup(struct rcu_state *rsp, struct rcu_node *rnp);
> >  static void rcu_init_one_nocb(struct rcu_node *rnp);
> > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> > index 927c17b081c7..68c5b23b7173 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> > @@ -2050,6 +2050,33 @@ static void wake_nocb_leader(struct rcu_data *rdp, bool force)
> >  }
> >  
> >  /*
> > + * Does the specified CPU need an RCU callback for the specified flavor
> > + * of rcu_barrier()?
> > + */
> > +static bool rcu_nocb_cpu_needs_barrier(struct rcu_state *rsp, int cpu)
> > +{
> > +	struct rcu_data *rdp = per_cpu_ptr(rsp->rda, cpu);
> > +	struct rcu_head *rhp;
> > +
> > +	/* No-CBs CPUs might have callbacks on any of three lists. */
> > +	rhp = ACCESS_ONCE(rdp->nocb_head);
> > +	if (!rhp)
> > +		rhp = ACCESS_ONCE(rdp->nocb_gp_head);
> > +	if (!rhp)
> > +		rhp = ACCESS_ONCE(rdp->nocb_follower_head);
> > +
> > +	/* Having no rcuo kthread but CBs after scheduler starts is bad! */
> > +	if (!ACCESS_ONCE(rdp->nocb_kthread) && rhp) {
> > +		/* RCU callback enqueued before CPU first came online??? */
> > +		pr_err("RCU: Never-onlined no-CBs CPU %d has CB %p\n",
> > +		       cpu, rhp->func);
> > +		WARN_ON_ONCE(1);
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	return !!rhp;
> > +}
> > +
> > +/*
> >   * Enqueue the specified string of rcu_head structures onto the specified
> >   * CPU's no-CBs lists.  The CPU is specified by rdp, the head of the
> >   * string by rhp, and the tail of the string by rhtp.  The non-lazy/lazy
> > @@ -2646,6 +2673,10 @@ static bool init_nocb_callback_list(struct rcu_data *rdp)
> >  
> >  #else /* #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_NOCB_CPU */
> >  
> > +static bool rcu_nocb_cpu_needs_barrier(struct rcu_state *rsp, int cpu)
> > +{
> > +}
> > +
> >  static void rcu_nocb_gp_cleanup(struct rcu_state *rsp, struct rcu_node *rnp)
> >  {
> >  }
> > 
> 

--
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/