Re: [PATCH v1] kthread/smpboot: Serialize kthread parking against wakeup

[Kohli, Gaurav]

On 5/1/2018 3:48 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, May 01, 2018 at 01:20:26PM +0530, Kohli, Gaurav wrote:
> > But In our older case, where we have seen failure below is the wake up path
> > and ftraces, Wakeup occured  and completed before schedule call only.
> >
> > So final state of CPUHP is running not parked. I have also pasted debug
> > ftraces that we got during issue reproduction.
> >
> > Here wakeup for cpuhp is below:
> >
> > takedown_cpu-> kthread_park-> wake_up_process
> >
> >
> >   39,034,311,742,395  apps (10240)        Trace Printk cpuhp/0  (16)  [000]
> > 39015.625000: <debug> __kthread_parkme state=512 task=ffffffcc7458e680
> > flags: 0x5 -> state 5 -> state is parked inside parkme function
> >
> > 39,034,311,846,510  apps (10240)        Trace Printk cpuhp/0  (16)  [000]
> > 39015.625000: <debug> before schedule __kthread_parkme state=0
> > task=ffffffcc7458e680 flags: 0xd  ->  just before schedule call, state is
> > running
> >
> > tatic void __kthread_parkme(struct kthread *self)
> >
> > {
> >
> >          __set_current_state(TASK_PARKED);
> >
> >          while (test_bit(KTHREAD_SHOULD_PARK, &self->flags)) {
> >
> >                  if (!test_and_set_bit(KTHREAD_IS_PARKED, &self->flags))
> >
> >                          complete(&self->parked);
> >
> >                  schedule();
> >
> >                  __set_current_state(TASK_PARKED);
> >
> >          }
> >
> >          clear_bit(KTHREAD_IS_PARKED, &self->flags);
> >
> >          __set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
> >
> > }
> >
> > So my point is here also, if it is reschedule then it can set TASK_PARKED,
> > but it seems after takedown_cpu call this thread never get a chance to run,
> > So final state is TASK_RUNNING.
> >
> > In our current fix also can't we observe same scenario where final state is
> > TASK_RUNNING.
>
> I'm not sure I understand your concern. Loosing the TASK_PARKED store
> with the above code is obviously bad. But with the loop as proposed I
> don't see a problem.

Yes with loop, it will reset TASK_PARKED but that is not happening in 
the dumps we have seen. Here before schedule state is RUNNING and cpuhp
got migrate to some core but never get a chance to run so state is running.
> takedown_cpu() can proceed beyond smpboot_park_threads() and kill the
> CPU before any of the threads are parked -- per having the complete()
> before hitting schedule().
>
> And, afaict, that is harmless. When we go offline, sched_cpu_dying() ->
> migrate_tasks() will migrate any still runnable threads off the cpu.
> But because at this point the thread must be in the PARKED wait-loop, it
> will hit schedule() and go to sleep eventually.
>
> Also note that kthread_unpark() does __kthread_bind() to rebind the
> threads.
>
> Aaaah... I think I've spotted a problem there. We clear SHOULD_PARK
> before we rebind, so if the thread lost the first PARKED store,
> does the completion, gets migrated, cycles through the loop and now
> observes !SHOULD_PARK and bails the wait-loop, then __kthread_bind()
> will forever wait.

So during next unpark
__kthread_unpark -> __kthread_bind -> wait_task_inactive (this got 
failed, as current state is running so failed on below call:


 while (task_running(rq, p)) {
                        if (match_state && unlikely(p->state != 
match_state))
                                return 0;
                        cpu_relax();
                }

and gives warning:


        if (!wait_task_inactive(p, state)) {
                WARN_ON(1);
                return; -> return from here, and further binding call 
fail which is after this code.
        }


finally it is giving bug_on here as we failed to rebind hotplug to our core:
                        }
                        kthread_parkme();
                        /* We might have been woken for stop */
                        continue;
                }

                BUG_ON(td->cpu != smp_processor_id()); panic occured.


So it seems we always have to be in PARKED state only , not miss any 
single instance.
> Is that what you had in mind?
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

--
Qualcomm India Private Limited, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, 
Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.