mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com,
	frederic@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH] time/tick-broadcast: Fix tick_broadcast_offline() lockdep complaint
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2019 10:50:27 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190621175027.GA23260@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190621174104.GA7519@linux.ibm.com>

On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 10:41:04AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 06:34:14AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 02:29:27PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 05:16:30AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > A pair of full hangs at boot (TASKS03 and TREE04), no console output
> > > > whatsoever.  Not sure how these changes could cause that, but suspicion
> > > > falls on sched_tick_offload_init().  Though even that is a bit strange
> > > > because if so, why didn't TREE01 and TREE07 also hang?  Again, looking
> > > > into it.
> > > 
> > > Pesky details ;-)
> > 
> > And backing out to the earlier patch removes the hangs, though statistical
> > insignificance and all that.
> 
> And purists might argue that four failures out of four attempts does not
> constitute true statistical significance, but too bad.  If I interpose
> a twork pointer in sched_tick_offload_init()'s initialization, it seems
> to work fine, give or take lack of statistical significance.  This is
> surprising, so I am rerunning with added parentheses in the atomic_set()
> expression.

Huh.  This works, albeit only once:

	int __init sched_tick_offload_init(void)
	{
		struct tick_work *twork;
		int cpu;

		tick_work_cpu = alloc_percpu(struct tick_work);
		BUG_ON(!tick_work_cpu);
		for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
			twork = per_cpu_ptr(tick_work_cpu, cpu);
			atomic_set(&twork->state, TICK_SCHED_REMOTE_OFFLINE);
		}

		return 0;
	}

This does not work:

	int __init sched_tick_offload_init(void)
	{
		int cpu;

		tick_work_cpu = alloc_percpu(struct tick_work);
		BUG_ON(!tick_work_cpu);
		for_each_possible_cpu(cpu)
			atomic_set(&(per_cpu(tick_work_cpu, cpu)->state), TICK_SCHED_REMOTE_OFFLINE);

		return 0;
	}

I will run more tests on the one that worked only once.  In the meantime,
feel free to tell me what stupid thing I did with the parentheses.

								Thanx, Paul

  reply	other threads:[~2019-06-21 17:50 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-06-19 18:19 Paul E. McKenney
2019-06-20 12:10 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-06-20 16:01   ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-06-20 21:10     ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-06-20 22:13       ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-06-21 10:55         ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-06-21 12:16           ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-06-21 12:29             ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-06-21 13:34               ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-06-21 17:41                 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-06-21 17:50                   ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2019-06-21 23:46                     ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-06-24 23:12                       ` Frederic Weisbecker
2019-06-24 23:44                         ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-06-25  0:43                           ` Frederic Weisbecker
2019-06-25  2:05                             ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-06-25  7:51                             ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-06-25 12:25                               ` Frederic Weisbecker
2019-06-25 13:54                                 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-06-25 14:05                                   ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-06-25 14:16                                     ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-06-25 16:20                                       ` Frederic Weisbecker
2019-06-25 16:52                                         ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-06-28  7:37                                           ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-06-28 12:17                                             ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-07-25 16:14                                           ` [tip:sched/core] " tip-bot for Paul E. McKenney
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2019-05-27 14:39 [PATCH] " Paul E. McKenney
2019-05-28 20:07 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-05-29 18:19   ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-05-30 12:58     ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-05-31  1:36       ` Frederic Weisbecker
2019-05-31 13:43         ` Paul E. McKenney

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=20190621175027.GA23260@linux.ibm.com \
    --to=paulmck@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=frederic@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.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