Re: [RFC] rcu: Warn that rcu ktheads cannot be spawned

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 11:50:15AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 12:46:24PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 05:27:32PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > > Hello rcu folks,
> > > 
> > > I thought it'd better to announce it if those spawnings fail because of
> > > !rcu_scheduler_fully_active.
> > > 
> > > Of course, with the current code, it never happens though.
> > > 
> > > Thoughts?
> > 
> > It seems in the right spirit, but with your patch a warning always fires.
> > rcu_prepare_cpu() is called multiple times, once from rcu_init() and then
> > from hotplug paths.
> 
> I'm sorry bothering you.
> 
> I sent the patch to ask how you guys think about the direction coz I'm
> not sure if the current code w/o warning on it is intended or not.
> 
> However from now on, I think I need to test it first even if it's RFC :)

That is what I do.  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul

> Thank you very much for the information.
> 
> Thanks,
> Byungchul
> 
> > Warning splat stack looks like:
> > 
> > [    0.398767] Call Trace:                                                                                                        
> > [    0.398775]  rcu_init+0x6aa/0x724                                             
> > [    0.398779]  start_kernel+0x220/0x4a2                                    
> > [    0.398780]  ? copy_bootdata+0x12/0xac                                                                                                                                   
> > [    0.398782]  secondary_startup_64+0xa4/0xb0    
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > Byungchul
> > > 
> > > ---8<---
> > > From 58a33a85c70f82c406319b4752af95cf6ceb73a3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > > From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@xxxxxxx>
> > > Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2019 17:08:26 +0900
> > > Subject: [RFC] rcu: Warn that rcu ktheads cannot be spawned
> > > 
> > > In case that rcu ktheads cannot be spawned due to
> > > !rcu_scheduler_fully_active, it'd be better to anounce it.
> > > 
> > > While at it, because the return value of rcu_spawn_one_boost_kthread()
> > > is not used any longer, changed the return type from int to void.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@xxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >  kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h | 31 +++++++++++++++++++------------
> > >  1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> > > index 1102765..7d74193 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> > > @@ -1131,7 +1131,7 @@ static void rcu_preempt_boost_start_gp(struct rcu_node *rnp)
> > >   * already exist.  We only create this kthread for preemptible RCU.
> > >   * Returns zero if all is well, a negated errno otherwise.
> > >   */
> > > -static int rcu_spawn_one_boost_kthread(struct rcu_node *rnp)
> > > +static void rcu_spawn_one_boost_kthread(struct rcu_node *rnp)
> > >  {
> > >  	int rnp_index = rnp - rcu_get_root();
> > >  	unsigned long flags;
> > > @@ -1139,25 +1139,24 @@ static int rcu_spawn_one_boost_kthread(struct rcu_node *rnp)
> > >  	struct task_struct *t;
> > >  
> > >  	if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU))
> > > -		return 0;
> > > +		return;
> > >  
> > > -	if (!rcu_scheduler_fully_active || rcu_rnp_online_cpus(rnp) == 0)
> > > -		return 0;
> > > +	if (rcu_rnp_online_cpus(rnp) == 0)
> > > +		return;
> > >  
> > >  	rcu_state.boost = 1;
> > >  	if (rnp->boost_kthread_task != NULL)
> > > -		return 0;
> > > +		return;
> > >  	t = kthread_create(rcu_boost_kthread, (void *)rnp,
> > >  			   "rcub/%d", rnp_index);
> > >  	if (IS_ERR(t))
> > > -		return PTR_ERR(t);
> > > +		return;
> > >  	raw_spin_lock_irqsave_rcu_node(rnp, flags);
> > >  	rnp->boost_kthread_task = t;
> > >  	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore_rcu_node(rnp, flags);
> > >  	sp.sched_priority = kthread_prio;
> > >  	sched_setscheduler_nocheck(t, SCHED_FIFO, &sp);
> > >  	wake_up_process(t); /* get to TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE quickly. */
> > > -	return 0;
> > >  }
> > >  
> > >  static void rcu_cpu_kthread_setup(unsigned int cpu)
> > > @@ -1264,8 +1263,12 @@ static void __init rcu_spawn_boost_kthreads(void)
> > >  		per_cpu(rcu_data.rcu_cpu_has_work, cpu) = 0;
> > >  	if (WARN_ONCE(smpboot_register_percpu_thread(&rcu_cpu_thread_spec), "%s: Could not start rcub kthread, OOM is now expected behavior\n", __func__))
> > >  		return;
> > > +
> > > +	if (WARN_ON(!rcu_scheduler_fully_active))
> > > +		return;
> > > +
> > >  	rcu_for_each_leaf_node(rnp)
> > > -		(void)rcu_spawn_one_boost_kthread(rnp);
> > > +		rcu_spawn_one_boost_kthread(rnp);
> > >  }
> > >  
> > >  static void rcu_prepare_kthreads(int cpu)
> > > @@ -1273,9 +1276,11 @@ static void rcu_prepare_kthreads(int cpu)
> > >  	struct rcu_data *rdp = per_cpu_ptr(&rcu_data, cpu);
> > >  	struct rcu_node *rnp = rdp->mynode;
> > >  
> > > +	if (WARN_ON(!rcu_scheduler_fully_active))
> > > +		return;
> > > +
> > >  	/* Fire up the incoming CPU's kthread and leaf rcu_node kthread. */
> > > -	if (rcu_scheduler_fully_active)
> > > -		(void)rcu_spawn_one_boost_kthread(rnp);
> > > +	rcu_spawn_one_boost_kthread(rnp);
> > >  }
> > >  
> > >  #else /* #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST */
> > > @@ -2198,8 +2203,10 @@ static void rcu_spawn_one_nocb_kthread(int cpu)
> > >   */
> > >  static void rcu_spawn_cpu_nocb_kthread(int cpu)
> > >  {
> > > -	if (rcu_scheduler_fully_active)
> > > -		rcu_spawn_one_nocb_kthread(cpu);
> > > +	if (WARN_ON(!rcu_scheduler_fully_active))
> > > +		return;
> > > +
> > > +	rcu_spawn_one_nocb_kthread(cpu);
> > >  }
> > >  
> > >  /*
> > > -- 
> > > 1.9.1
> > > 
>