lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Feb]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [Bug #12650] Strange load average and ksoftirqd behavior with 2.6.29-rc2-git1
    On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 07:10:46AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
    > On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 05:34:23AM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
    > > On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 02:39:44PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
    > > > On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 09:09:23PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
    > > > >
    > > > > * Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
    > > > >
    > > > > > Here the calls to rcu_process_callbacks() are only 75
    > > > > > microseconds apart, so that this function is consuming more
    > > > > > than 10% of a CPU. The strange thing is that I don't see a
    > > > > > raise_softirq() in between, though perhaps it gets inlined or
    > > > > > something that makes it invisible to ftrace.
    > > > >
    > > > > look at the latest trace please, that has even the most inline
    > > > > raise-softirq method instrumented, so all the raising is
    > > > > visible.
    > > >
    > > > Ah, my apologies! This time looking at:
    > > >
    > > > http://damien.wyart.free.fr/ksoftirqd_pb/trace_tip_2009.02.16_ksoftirqd_pb_abstime_proc.txt.gz
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > 799.521187 | 1) <idle>-0 | | rcu_check_callbacks() {
    > > > 799.521371 | 1) <idle>-0 | | rcu_check_callbacks() {
    > > > 799.521555 | 1) <idle>-0 | | rcu_check_callbacks() {
    > > > 799.521738 | 1) <idle>-0 | | rcu_check_callbacks() {
    > > > 799.521934 | 1) <idle>-0 | | rcu_check_callbacks() {
    > > > 799.522068 | 1) ksoftir-2324 | | rcu_check_callbacks() {
    > > > 799.522208 | 1) <idle>-0 | | rcu_check_callbacks() {
    > > > 799.522392 | 1) <idle>-0 | | rcu_check_callbacks() {
    > > > 799.522575 | 1) <idle>-0 | | rcu_check_callbacks() {
    > > > 799.522759 | 1) <idle>-0 | | rcu_check_callbacks() {
    > > > 799.522956 | 1) <idle>-0 | | rcu_check_callbacks() {
    > > > 799.523074 | 1) ksoftir-2324 | | rcu_check_callbacks() {
    > > > 799.523214 | 1) <idle>-0 | | rcu_check_callbacks() {
    > > > 799.523397 | 1) <idle>-0 | | rcu_check_callbacks() {
    > > > 799.523579 | 1) <idle>-0 | | rcu_check_callbacks() {
    > > > 799.523762 | 1) <idle>-0 | | rcu_check_callbacks() {
    > > > 799.523960 | 1) <idle>-0 | | rcu_check_callbacks() {
    > > > 799.524079 | 1) ksoftir-2324 | | rcu_check_callbacks() {
    > > > 799.524220 | 1) <idle>-0 | | rcu_check_callbacks() {
    > > > 799.524403 | 1) <idle>-0 | | rcu_check_callbacks() {
    > > > 799.524587 | 1) <idle>-0 | | rcu_check_callbacks() {
    > > > 799.524770 | 1) <idle>-0 | | rcu_check_callbacks() {
    > > > [ . . . ]
    > > >
    > > > Yikes!!!
    > > >
    > > > Why is rcu_check_callbacks() being invoked so often? It should be called
    > > > but once per jiffy, and here it is called no less than 22 times in about
    > > > 3.5 milliseconds, meaning one call every 160 microseconds or so.
    > > >
    > > > Hmmm...
    > > >
    > > > Looks like we never return from:
    > > >
    > > > 799.521142 | 1) <idle>-0 | | tick_nohz_stop_sched_tick() {
    > > >
    > > > Perhaps we are taking an interrupt immediately after the
    > > > local_irq_restore()? And at 799.521209 deciding to exit nohz mode.
    > > > And then deciding to go back into nohz mode at 799.521326, 117
    > > > microseconds later, after which we re-invoke rcu_check_callbacks(),
    > > > which again raises RCU's softirq.
    > > >
    > > > And the reason we are invoking rcu_check_callbacks() so often appears
    > > > to be in in arch/x86/kernel/process_32.c cpu_idle() near line 107,
    > > > which explains my failure to reproduce on a 64-bit system:
    > > >
    > > > void cpu_idle(void)
    > > > {
    > > > int cpu = smp_processor_id();
    > > >
    > > > current_thread_info()->status |= TS_POLLING;
    > > >
    > > > /* endless idle loop with no priority at all */
    > > > while (1) {
    > > > tick_nohz_stop_sched_tick(1);
    > > > while (!need_resched()) {
    > > >
    > > > check_pgt_cache();
    > > > rmb();
    > > >
    > > > if (rcu_pending(cpu))
    > > > rcu_check_callbacks(cpu, 0);
    > > >
    > > > if (cpu_is_offline(cpu))
    > > > play_dead();
    > > >
    > > > local_irq_disable();
    > > > __get_cpu_var(irq_stat).idle_timestamp = jiffies;
    > > > /* Don't trace irqs off for idle */
    > > > stop_critical_timings();
    > > > pm_idle();
    > > > start_critical_timings();
    > > > }
    > > > tick_nohz_restart_sched_tick();
    > > > preempt_enable_no_resched();
    > > > schedule();
    > > > preempt_disable();
    > > > }
    > > > }
    > > >
    > > > If we go in and out of nohz mode quickly, we will invoke rcu_pending()
    > > > each time. I would expect rcu_pending() to return 0 most of the time,
    > > > but that apparently isn't the case with treercu...
    > > >
    > > > What is the easiest way for me to make it easy to trace the return path
    > > > from __rcu_pending()? Make each return path call an empty function
    > > > located off where the compiler cannot see it, I guess... Diagnostic
    > > > patch along these lines below. Frederic, Damien, could you please give
    > > > it a go? (And of course please let me know if something else is
    > > > needed.)
    > >
    > >
    > > No, you don't need that, you can use ftrace_printk, it will generate a C-comment like
    > > inside the functions, ie:
    > >
    > > __rcu_pending() {
    > > /* pending_qs */
    > > }
    >
    > Ah!!! So if I were to put ftrace_printk() calls at strategic points
    > in the RCU code, that would be a good thing?
    >
    > > I've converted your below patch with ftrace_printks and tested it under an old P2
    > > with rcu_tree and 1000 Hz. I made a trace during an idle state, and well, looks like I'm
    > > lucky :-)
    > > I guess I successfully reproduced the softirq/rcu overhead.
    > > Please find the below patch to trace the rcu_pending return path, as well as the trace I made.
    > > Sorry, the trace is a bit buggy with sometimes flying orphans C like comments.
    > > When I will have more time, I will fix that.
    > >
    > > The trace is here http://dl.free.fr/uyWGgCbx4
    > >
    > > It looks like it mostly returns 1 because of the waiting for quiescent state:
    > >
    > > $ cat rcutrace | grep "/* pending_none" | wc -l
    > > 221
    > > $ cat rcutrace | grep "/* pending_qs" | wc -l
    > > 248
    > > $ cat rcutrace | grep "/* pending" | wc -l
    > > 469
    >
    > Hmmm... This looks like normal behavior. Though I wonder if
    > rcu_check_callbacks() is recognizing that we are in the idle loop given
    > the large number of "pending_qs" entries. To that end, would you be
    > willing to try the attached patch (on top of your ftrace_printk() patch)?
    >
    > Add ftrace_printk() to rcu_check_callbacks() to allow ftrace to
    > determine when RCU has detected a quiescent state due to interrupting
    > from within it.


    Do you still need this trace even if your solution were applied on -tip ?


    > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
    > ---
    >
    > rcutree.c | 2 ++
    > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
    >
    > diff --git a/kernel/rcutree.c b/kernel/rcutree.c
    > index b2fd602..fa14a0f 100644
    > --- a/kernel/rcutree.c
    > +++ b/kernel/rcutree.c
    > @@ -966,6 +966,7 @@ void rcu_check_callbacks(int cpu, int user)
    >
    > rcu_qsctr_inc(cpu);
    > rcu_bh_qsctr_inc(cpu);
    > + ftrace_printk("rcu user/idle");
    >
    > } else if (!in_softirq()) {
    >
    > @@ -977,6 +978,7 @@ void rcu_check_callbacks(int cpu, int user)
    > */
    >
    > rcu_bh_qsctr_inc(cpu);
    > + ftrace_printk("rcu !softirq");
    > }
    > raise_softirq(RCU_SOFTIRQ);
    > }



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-02-18 12:23    [W:0.035 / U:61.840 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site