Re: [PATCH] sched/isolation: Make NO_HZ_FULL select CPU_ISOLATION

[Frederic Weisbecker]

2017-12-04 18:16 UTC+01:00, Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 04:53:15PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>> 2017-12-02 20:24 UTC+01:00, Paul E. McKenney
>> I would prefer to keep it. It's useful for automated boot testing
>> based on configs such as 0-day or -tip test machines. But I'm likely
>> to migrate it to isolcpus implementation. Maybe something along the
>> lines of CONFIG_CPU_ISOLATION_ALL.
>
> How about instead allowing something like "nohz_full=1-" specify that
> all CPUs other than CPU 0 should be nohz_full CPUs?  That would shrink
> the code by eliminating CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL_ALL while still allowing
> easy automation of that particular scenario.
>
> (Right now, the boot code complains about "nohz_full=1-", which means
> that whatever is generating the boot parameters needs to know how many
> CPUs there really are, which as you say can be a pain.)

Yes but automated boot testing is rather based on configs than boot
options. It's much easier. I think that's how Wu Fengguang lab works,
and -tip automated tests as well.

>
>> >> Did you have any nohz_full= or isolcpus= boot options?
>> >
>> > Replacing CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL_ALL=y with nohz_full=1-7 works, that
>> > is CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL=y, CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL_ALL=n, and nohz_full=1-7
>> > on an eight-CPU test.
>> >
>> > But it is relatively easy to test.  Running the rcutorture TREE04
>> > scenario on a four-socket x86 gets me RCU CPU stall warnings within
>> > a few minutes more than half the time.  ;-)
>>
>> Indeed I managed to trigger something. If it's the same thing I should
>> be able to track down the root cause.
>>
>> [  123.907557] ??? Writer stall state RTWS_STUTTER(8) g160 c160 f0x0
>> ->state 0x1 cpu 2
>> [  123.915184] rcu_torture_wri S    0   111      2 0x80080000
>> [  123.920673] Call Trace:
>> [  123.923096]  ? __schedule+0x2bf/0xbb0
>> [  123.926715]  ? _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x59/0x70
>> [  123.931657]  schedule+0x3c/0x90
>> [  123.934777]  schedule_timeout+0x1e1/0x560
>
> It might well be the same thing, as this schedule_timeout() does look
> familiar.  I have some diagnostic patches in -rcu, please see below
> for the overall effect.

I fear I can hit that even without any nohz_full CPU as well.

>
> 							Thanx, Paul
>
>> [  123.938785]  ? __next_timer_interrupt+0xd0/0xd0
>> [  123.943276]  stutter_wait+0xc5/0xe0
>> [  123.946738]  rcu_torture_writer+0x1ae/0x730
>> [  123.950912]  ? rcu_torture_pipe_update+0xf0/0xf0
>> [  123.955491]  kthread+0x15f/0x1a0
>> [  123.958702]  ? kthread_unpark+0x60/0x60
>> [  123.962523]  ret_from_fork+0x24/0x30
>> [  123.966091] rcu_preempt: wait state: 1 ->state: 0x402
>> [  123.971112] rcu_sched: wait state: 1 ->state: 0x402
>> [  123.975953] rcu_bh: wait state: 1 ->state: 0x402
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> diff --git a/kernel/time/timer.c b/kernel/time/timer.c
> index ffebcf878fba..23af27461d8c 100644
> --- a/kernel/time/timer.c
> +++ b/kernel/time/timer.c
> @@ -1755,8 +1755,13 @@ static void process_timeout(struct timer_list *t)
>   */
>  signed long __sched schedule_timeout(signed long timeout)
>  {
> +	struct timer_base *base;
>  	struct process_timer timer;
>  	unsigned long expire;
> +	unsigned long flags;
> +	unsigned long i;
> +	unsigned int idx, idx_now;
> +	unsigned long j;
>
>  	switch (timeout)
>  	{
> @@ -1793,6 +1798,17 @@ signed long __sched schedule_timeout(signed long
> timeout)
>  	timer_setup_on_stack(&timer.timer, process_timeout, 0);
>  	__mod_timer(&timer.timer, expire, 0);
>  	schedule();
> +	j = jiffies;
> +	if (timeout < 5 && time_after(j, expire + 8 * HZ) &&
> timer_pending(&timer.timer)) {
> +		base = lock_timer_base(&timer.timer, &flags);
> +		idx = timer_get_idx(&timer.timer);
> +		idx_now = calc_wheel_index(j, base->clk);
> +		raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&base->lock, flags);
> +		pr_info("%s: Waylayed timer base->clk: %#lx jiffies: %#lx
> base->next_expiry: %#lx timer->flags: %#x timer->expires %#lx idx: %x
> idx_now: %x base->pending_map ", __func__, base->clk, j, base->next_expiry,
> timer.timer.flags, timer.timer.expires, idx, idx_now);
> +		for (i = 0; i < WHEEL_SIZE / sizeof(base->pending_map[0]) / 8; i++)
> +			pr_cont("%016lx", base->pending_map[i]);
> +		pr_cont("\n");
> +	}
>  	del_singleshot_timer_sync(&timer.timer);
>
>  	/* Remove the timer from the object tracker */
>
>

Hmm, that message doesn't seem to trigger :-s

Thanks.