Re: "Dying CPU not properly vacated" splat

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Tue, Aug 02, 2022 at 10:30:02AM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> On 05/07/22 10:23, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > The second of these occurred near shutdown, but the first was quite some
> > time before shutdown.  In case that makes a difference.
> >
> > I have not seen this since.
> >
> > Any other diagnostics I should add?
> >
> 
> Sorry, I let this get buried to the bottom of my inbox :(
> 
> I've had another look at rcutorture.c but just like for
> rcu_torture_reader(), I don't see any obvious culprit (no
> kthread_set_per_cpu() usage)).
> 
> One thing I think would help is a scheduling trace (say sched_switch,
> sched_wakeup and cpuhp*, combined with ftrace_dump_on_oops + panic_on_warn
> ?) - that should at least tell us if the issue is in the wakeup placement
> (if the task gets placed on a dying CPU *after* CPUHP_AP_ACTIVE), or in the
> balance_push() mechanism (the task was *already* on the CPU when it started
> dying and never moved away).
> 
> Neither make sense to me, but it has to be somewhere in there...

And given that it has been more than a year since I have seen this,
I am considering it to be fixed, whether purposefully or accidentally.

							Thanx, Paul