Re: [PATCH v2] softlockup: serialized softlockup's log

[lizhe.67@bytedance.com]

On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 15:22:12 -0800, dianders@chromium.org wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 18:02:12 +0800 lizhe.67@bytedance.com wrote:
>>
>> > From: Li Zhe <lizhe.67@bytedance.com>
>> >
>> > If multiple CPUs trigger softlockup at the same time with
>> > 'softlockup_all_cpu_backtrace=0', the softlockup's logs will appear
>> > staggeredly in dmesg, which will affect the viewing of the logs for
>> > developer. Since the code path for outputting softlockup logs is not
>> > a kernel hotspot and the performance requirements for the code are
>> > not strict, locks are used to serialize the softlockup log output to
>> > improve the readability of the logs.
>>
>> Seems reasonable, but...
>>
>> > --- a/kernel/watchdog.c
>> > +++ b/kernel/watchdog.c
>> > @@ -28,6 +28,8 @@
>> >  #include <linux/kvm_para.h>
>> >
>> >  static DEFINE_MUTEX(watchdog_mutex);
>> > +/* This lock is used to prevent concurrent actions of softlockup output logs */
>> > +static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(watchdog_output_lock);
>>
>> It would be a little neater to reduce the scope of this - move the
>> definition into that little code block in watchdog_timer_fn() where it
>> is actually used.
>
>That's where Li Zhe had it in v1. I actually requested it move to a
>larger scope since I think we'll want a future patch that also uses
>the same lock for hardlockup and I was thinking of sending that out
>after Li Zhe's patch lands. Specifically, I've seen cases on arm64
>when pseudo-NMI isn't enabled that we can end up with a soft lockup
>triggering while we're waiting for a backtrace of a hardlockup (since
>we wait 10 seconds if a CPU isn't responding to the request to
>backtrace it).

In my opinion, I think both definition methods are OK. But for the
original patch, it is more appropriate to put the definition inside
the function. I will send a v3 patch. Looking forward to your patches
for the hardlockup.

>
>I've also been testing hardlockup (with pseudo-NMI enabled) and I also
>notice similar problems with hardlockup itself. Specifically, I'm
>looking at a an output currently that looks like this:
>
>[  102.619905] lkdtm: Performing direct entry HARDLOCKUP
>[  112.037900] Watchdog detected hard LOCKUP on cpu 1
>[  112.038031] Watchdog detected hard LOCKUP on cpu 7
>[  112.042872] Modules linked in:
>[  112.047807] Modules linked in:
>...
>
>...but I'd also be OK with limiting the scope until I send my later
>patch, so up to you.
>
>
>> >  #if defined(CONFIG_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR) || defined(CONFIG_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_SPARC64)
>> >  # define WATCHDOG_HARDLOCKUP_DEFAULT 1
>> > @@ -514,6 +516,7 @@ static enum hrtimer_restart watchdog_timer_fn(struct hrtimer *hrtimer)
>> >               /* Start period for the next softlockup warning. */
>> >               update_report_ts();
>> >
>> > +             spin_lock(&watchdog_output_lock);
>>
>> The hrtimer callout function is called from [soft]irq context, yes?
>> Doesn't lockdep get upset when we take a spinlock in such a context?
>
>I don't think so, but I could certainly be wrong. As far as I knew:
>
>* spin_lock_irqsave / spin_unlock_irqrestore: Always safe to call,
>whether from normal context or IRQ context. Saves whether IRQs were
>disabled or not, then disables them, then restores them to how they
>were before.
>
>* spin_lock_irq, spin_unlock_irq: Safe to call as long as you're _not_
>in IRQ context (because spin_lock_irq disables IRQs and
>spin_unlock_irq unconditionally re-enables them)
>
>* spin_lock / spin_unlock: Safe to call as long as you _are_ in IRQ
>context. Being in IRQ context means IRQs are already disabled so the
>function doesn't need to disable/reenable them. Also safe to call if
>no users of this spinlock ever run in IRQ context.
>
>The reason for all that complexity is to specifically to avoid:
>
>1. spin_lock(&my_lock);
>2. IRQ fires off
>3. In IRQ context: spin_lock(&my_lock);
>
>...because that would make us spin forever.
>

I can't aggree with you more.

>
>Just to be sure, I just tried with lockdep and things seemed OK.
>Specifically, I did:
>
>sysctl -w kernel.softlockup_panic=0
>sysctl -w kernel.softlockup_all_cpu_backtrace=0
>for i in $(seq 3); do
>  echo SOFTLOCKUP > /sys/kernel/debug/provoke-crash/DIRECT&
>done
>
>I got no lockdep splats and things seemed synchronized. Of course, the
>system was in pretty bad shape because the "provoke-crash" module
>never gets out of its soft lockup, but that's part for the course and
>why on our systems we run with kernel.softlockup_panic=1. I guess that
>also means I'd be happy with this now:

I also did the same test, things seemed OK.

>
>Tested-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>

Thank you very much for your test!