From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Chatre, Reinette" <reinette.chatre@intel.com>,
"Jacob Pan" <jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com>,
"Josh Triplett" <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
"Ross Green" <rgkernel@gmail.com>,
"John Stultz" <john.stultz@linaro.org>,
"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@kernel.org>,
"Lai Jiangshan" <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
dipankar@in.ibm.com, "Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
"David Howells" <dhowells@redhat.com>,
"Eric Dumazet" <edumazet@google.com>,
"Darren Hart" <dvhart@linux.intel.com>,
"Frédéric Weisbecker" <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
"Oleg Nesterov" <oleg@redhat.com>,
"pranith kumar" <bobby.prani@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: rcu_preempt self-detected stall on CPU from 4.5-rc3, since 3.17
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 08:13:51 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160328061350.GC6344@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1124128277.37541.1459131825120.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 02:23:45AM +0000, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> >> But, you need hotplug for this to happen, right?
> >
> > My understanding is that this seems to be detection of failures to be
> > awakened for a long time on idle CPUs. It therefore seems to be more
> > idle-related than cpu hotplug-related. I'm not saying that there is
> > no issue with hotplug, just that the investigation so far seems to
> > target mostly idle systems, AFAIK without stressing hotplug.
Paul has stated that without hotplug he cannot trigger this.
> > set_nr_if_polling() returns true if the ti->flags read has the
> > _TIF_NEED_RESCHED bit set, which will skip the IPI.
POLLING_NR, as per your later comment
> > But it seems weird. The side that calls set_nr_if_polling()
> > does the following:
> > 1) llist_add(&p->wake_entry, &cpu_rq(cpu)->wake_list)
> > 2) set_nr_if_polling(rq->idle)
> > 3) (don't do smp_send_reschedule(cpu) since set_nr_if_polling() returned
> > true)
> >
> > The idle loop does:
> > 1) __current_set_polling()
> > 2) __current_clr_polling()
> > 3) smp_mb__after_atomic()
> > 4) sched_ttwu_pending()
> > 5) schedule_preempt_disabled()
> > -> This will clear the TIF_NEED_RESCHED flag
> >
> > While the idle loop is in sched_ttwu_pending(), after
> > it has done the llist_del_all() (thus has grabbed all the
> > list entries), TIF_NEED_RESCHED is still set.
> > If both list_all and
llist_add() ?
> > set_nr_if_polling() are called right after the llist_del_all(), we
> > will end up in a situation where we have an entry in the list, but
> > there won't be any reschedule sent on the idle CPU until something
> > else awakens it. On a _very_ idle CPU, this could take some time.
Can't happen, as per clearing of POLLING_NR before doing llist_del_all()
and the latter being a full memory barrier.
> > set_nr_and_not_polling() don't seem to have the same issue, because
> > it does not return true if TIF_NEED_RESCHED is observed as being
> > already set: it really just depends on the state of the TIF_POLLING_NRFLAG
> > bit.
> >
> > Am I missing something important ?
>
> Well, it seems that the test for _TIF_POLLING_NRFLAG in set_nr_if_polling()
> just before the test for _TIF_NEED_RESCHED should take care of it: while in
> sched_ttwu_pending within the idle loop, the TIF_POLLING_NRFLAG should be
> cleared, thus causing set_nr_if_polling to return false.
Right, clue in the name: Set NEED_RESCHED _IF_ POLLING_NR (is set).
> I'm slightly concerned about the lack of smp_mb__after_atomic()
> between the TIF_NEED_RESCHED flag being cleared within schedule_preempt_disabled
> and the TIF_POLLING_NRFLAG being set in the following loop. Indeed, clear_bit()
> does not have a compiler barrier,
Urgh, it really should, as all atomic ops. set_bit() very much has a
memory clobber in, see below.
> nor processor-level memory barriers
> (of course, the processor memory barrier should not really matter on
> x86-64 due to lock prefix).
Right.
> Moreover, TIF_NEED_RESCHED is bit 3 on x86-64,
> whereas TIF_POLLING_NRFLAG is bit 21. Those are in two different bytes of
> the thread flags, and thus set/cleared as different addresses by clear_bit()
> acting on an immediate "nr" argument.
>
> If we have any state where TIF_POLLING_NRFLAG is set before TIF_NEED_RESCHED
> is cleared within the idle thread, we could end up missing a needed resched IPI.
Yes, that would be bad. No objection to adding smp_mb__before_atomic()
before the initial __current_set_polling(). Although that's not going to
make a difference for x86_64 as you already noted.
> Another question: why are set_nr_if_polling and set_nr_and_not_polling two
> different implementations ?
Because they're fundamentally two different things. The one
conditionally sets NEED_RESCHED, the other unconditionally sets it.
> Could they be combined ?
Can, yes, will not be pretty nor clear code though.
---
arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h | 6 ++++--
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h
index 7766d1cf096e..5345784d5e41 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h
@@ -112,11 +112,13 @@ clear_bit(long nr, volatile unsigned long *addr)
if (IS_IMMEDIATE(nr)) {
asm volatile(LOCK_PREFIX "andb %1,%0"
: CONST_MASK_ADDR(nr, addr)
- : "iq" ((u8)~CONST_MASK(nr)));
+ : "iq" ((u8)~CONST_MASK(nr))
+ : "memory");
} else {
asm volatile(LOCK_PREFIX "btr %1,%0"
: BITOP_ADDR(addr)
- : "Ir" (nr));
+ : "Ir" (nr)
+ : "memory");
}
}
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-03-28 6:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 79+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-02-09 10:11 Ross Green
2016-02-17 5:45 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-02-17 19:28 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-02-17 19:45 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-02-17 20:28 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-02-17 23:19 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-02-18 11:51 ` Ross Green
2016-02-18 23:14 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2016-02-19 3:56 ` Ross Green
2016-02-19 4:13 ` John Stultz
2016-02-19 17:33 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-02-20 4:34 ` Ross Green
2016-02-20 6:32 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-02-21 5:04 ` Ross Green
2016-02-21 18:15 ` Ross Green
2016-02-23 20:34 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2016-02-23 20:55 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-02-23 21:28 ` Ross Green
2016-02-25 5:13 ` Ross Green
2016-02-26 0:56 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-02-26 1:35 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-03-04 5:30 ` Ross Green
2016-03-04 15:18 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-03-18 21:00 ` Josh Triplett
2016-03-18 23:56 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-03-21 16:22 ` Jacob Pan
2016-03-21 17:26 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-03-22 16:35 ` Chatre, Reinette
2016-03-22 17:40 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-03-22 21:04 ` Chatre, Reinette
2016-03-22 21:19 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-03-23 17:15 ` Chatre, Reinette
2016-03-23 18:20 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-03-23 18:25 ` Chatre, Reinette
2016-03-23 19:50 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-03-25 21:24 ` Chatre, Reinette
2016-03-25 21:46 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-03-26 12:29 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2016-03-26 15:28 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-03-26 18:49 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-03-26 22:22 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2016-03-27 1:34 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-03-27 13:48 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2016-03-27 15:40 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-03-27 20:00 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-03-27 20:45 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-03-27 21:06 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-03-28 6:25 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-03-28 13:08 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-03-29 0:25 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-03-29 0:28 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-03-29 13:49 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-03-30 14:55 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-03-31 15:42 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-04-03 8:18 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-05-06 6:25 ` Ross Green
2016-05-07 15:25 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-05-10 2:36 ` Ross Green
2016-06-30 17:52 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-03-28 1:44 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2016-03-28 2:23 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2016-03-28 6:13 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2016-03-28 13:50 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-03-28 14:15 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2016-03-27 20:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-03-27 21:07 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-03-27 20:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-03-27 21:09 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-03-28 6:28 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-03-28 13:29 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-03-28 15:07 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2016-03-28 15:56 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-03-28 16:12 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2016-03-28 16:29 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-03-30 12:58 ` Boqun Feng
2016-03-30 13:30 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-03-30 14:15 ` Boqun Feng
2016-02-19 4:22 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-02-19 5:59 ` Ross Green
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20160328061350.GC6344@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bobby.prani@gmail.com \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=dipankar@in.ibm.com \
--cc=dvhart@linux.intel.com \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com \
--cc=jiangshanlai@gmail.com \
--cc=john.stultz@linaro.org \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=reinette.chatre@intel.com \
--cc=rgkernel@gmail.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome