Re: Question on task_blocks_on_rt_mutex()

[Joel Fernandes]

On Sat, Sep 05, 2020 at 05:24:06PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> Hi Paul,
> 
> On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 01:06:39PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 08:54:10AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 06:51:28PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 01 Sep 2020, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > And it appears that a default-niced CPU-bound SCHED_OTHER process is
> > > > > not preempted by a newly awakened MAX_NICE SCHED_OTHER process.  OK,
> > > > > OK, I never waited for more than 10 minutes, but on my 2.2GHz that is
> > > > > close enough to a hang for most people.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Which means that the patch below prevents the hangs.  And maybe does
> > > > > other things as well, firing rcutorture up on it to check.
> > > > > 
> > > > > But is this indefinite delay expected behavior?
> > > > > 
> > > > > This reproduces for me on current mainline as follows:
> > > > > 
> > > > > tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/bin/kvm.sh --allcpus --torture lock --duration 3 --configs LOCK05
> > > > > 
> > > > > This hangs within a minute of boot on my setup.  Here "hangs" is defined
> > > > > as stopping the per-15-second console output of:
> > > > > 	Writes:  Total: 569906696 Max/Min: 81495031/63736508   Fail: 0
[...]
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > commit d93a64389f4d544ded241d0ba30b2586497f5dc0
> > Author: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Date:   Tue Sep 1 16:58:41 2020 -0700
> > 
> >     torture: Periodically pause in stutter_wait()
> >     
> >     Running locktorture scenario LOCK05 results in hangs:
> >     
> >     tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/bin/kvm.sh --allcpus --torture lock --duration 3 --configs LOCK05
> >     
> >     The lock_torture_writer() kthreads set themselves to MAX_NICE while
> >     running SCHED_OTHER.  Other locktorture kthreads run at default niceness,
> >     also SCHED_OTHER.  This results in these other locktorture kthreads
> >     indefinitely preempting the lock_torture_writer() kthreads.  Note that
> 
> In the past I have seen issues with niceness and CFS. Those issues were
> related to tick granularity, if the scheduler tick is too coarse, then
> scheduler may allow a low priority task to run for a bit longer. But this
> also means that higher priority tasks will take even longer to catch up to
> the vruntime of the lower priority ones. IIRC, this can run into several
> seconds.
> 
> Not fully sure if that's what you're seeing. If you drop the niceness by some
> amount, does the issue go away or get better?
> 
> >     the cond_resched() in the stutter_wait() function's loop is ineffective
> >     because this scenario is built with CONFIG_PREEMPT=y.
> >     
> >     It is not clear that such indefinite preemption is supposed to happen, but
> >     in the meantime this commit prevents kthreads running in stutter_wait()
> >     from being completely CPU-bound, thus allowing the other threads to get
> >     some CPU in a timely fashion.  This commit also uses hrtimers to provide
> >     very short sleeps to avoid degrading the sudden-on testing that stutter
> >     is supposed to provide.
> 
> There is a CFS tracepoint called sched:sched_stat_runtime. That could be
> enabled to see what happens to the vruntime values on the wakeup of the lower
> prio task.
> 
> I'm also seeing the LOCK05 failure, I see that some writer threads are in
> TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE state shown by hung task detector on LOCK05. So these
> writers didn't wake up for over 2 minutes to begin with:
> 
> [  246.797326] task:lock_torture_wr state:D stack:14696 pid:   72 ppid:     2 flags:0x00004000
> [  246.798826] Call Trace:
> [  246.799282]  __schedule+0x414/0x6a0
> [  246.799917]  schedule+0x41/0xe0
> [  246.800510]  __rt_mutex_slowlock+0x49/0xd0
> [  246.801259]  rt_mutex_slowlock+0xca/0x1e0
> [  246.801994]  ? lock_torture_reader+0x110/0x110
> [  246.802799]  torture_rtmutex_lock+0xc/0x10
> [  246.803545]  lock_torture_writer+0x72/0x150
> [  246.804322]  kthread+0x120/0x160
> [  246.804911]  ? kthread_park+0x80/0x80
> [  246.805581]  ret_from_fork+0x22/0x30
> [  246.806237] INFO: task lock_torture_wr:73 blocked for more than 122 seconds.
> [  246.807505]       Not tainted 5.9.0-rc1+ #26
> [  246.808287] "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message.
> [  246.809690] task:lock_torture_wr state:D stack:14696 pid:   73 ppid:     2 flags:0x00004000
> [  246.811208] Call Trace:
> [  246.811657]  __schedule+0x414/0x6a0
> [  246.812306]  schedule+0x41/0xe0
> [  246.812881]  __rt_mutex_slowlock+0x49/0xd0
> [  246.813636]  rt_mutex_slowlock+0xca/0x1e0
> [  246.814371]  ? lock_torture_reader+0x110/0x110
> [  246.815182]  torture_rtmutex_lock+0xc/0x10
> [  246.815923]  lock_torture_writer+0x72/0x150
> [  246.816692]  kthread+0x120/0x160
> [  246.817287]  ? kthread_park+0x80/0x80
> [  246.817952]  ret_from_fork+0x22/0x30
> 
> Could this just be a side effect of the issue you are seeing?  (A writer
> acquired a lock but never got CPU to release it, which inturn caused lock
> acquirers to block in D-state indefinitely).

It appears to me the reason could be because the higher priority task is RT:

sched_switch: prev_comm=lock_torture_wr prev_pid=74 prev_prio=139 prev_state=R+ ==> next_comm=lock_torture_wr next_pid=70 next_prio=49

After this, only pid=70 runs till the hungtasks detector screams.

Could this because the writer calls cur_ops->task_boost(); which sets pid=70
to RT?  As long as RT task runs, it will block the CFS task without giving it CPU.

thanks,

 - Joel