[lkml]   [2009]   [Aug]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU in next/mmotm
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 11:22:50AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Paul E. McKenney <> wrote:
> > Should these tests pass...

Things are working much better, but I can still cause failures by
hotplugging CPUs with zero wait time between them while concurrently
modprobe-ing and rmmod-ing rcutorture repeatedly while running
CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU. I increased the kernel's lifespan by an order of
magnitude or so by simplifying rcupreempt's hotplug code path.

And I just -know- that I will deeply regret having described my test
process, given that my life is much easier when my RCU testing is more
rigorous than anyone else's. ;-)

The remaining (known) problem appears to be due to a kthread_stop()
deadlock between the migration threads and a few of rcutorture's kthreads.
In this deadlock, rcutorture is waiting for one of the fakewriters
to stop (via kthread_stop()), while the fakewriter is waiting for
synchronize_rcu() to complete. The migration thread's CPU-hotplug
notifier is blocked in kthread_stop() because rcutorture holds the
kthread_stop() mutex.

I could argue that CPU hotplug should allow RCU grace periods to
proceed regardless, but I believe that the problem is that some thread
is preempted in the middle of an RCU read-side critical section, but
cannot be migrated to a CPU that could run it due to the fact that the
migration kthread is stuck in its CPU-hotplug notifier. RCU being what
it is, it seems reasonable for me to instead arrange so that rcutorture
never invokes kthread_stop() unless it knows that the target thread cannot
possibly be in the midst of synchronize_rcu(). That said, there is the
concern that this general pattern might rear its ugly head elsewhere.

> > Unless someone tells me otherwise, I will make a patch series
> > intended to replace tip/core/rcu commits 7fe616c5d ("Simplify RCU
> > CPU-hotplug notification"), 04b06256c ("Fix RCU & CPU hotplug
> > hang"), and 7256cf0e83b ("Add diagnostic check for a possible
> > CPU-hotplug race"), re-run all tests on that patchset, and submit
> > the series. I expect the resulting patch set to have three
> > patches, one to split out boot-time initialization for RCU_TREE, a
> > second to create the cpu_notifier() API, and the third to make RCU
> > use it.

While thinking this over, I am rebasing as described above, and doing
full-up testing at each step. No more Mr. Nice Guy!!! ;-)

In the meantime, can anyone tell me why we only let one kthread stop at
a time?

> Sure - we can reasonably rebase portions of that stack of commits:
> earth4:~/tip> gll linus..core/rcu
> 7256cf0: rcu: Add diagnostic check for a possible CPU-hotplug race
> 04b0625: rcu: Fix RCU & CPU hotplug hang
> 7fe616c: rcu: Simplify RCU CPU-hotplug notification
> 240ebbf: rcu: Add synchronize_sched_expedited() rcutorture doc + updates
> 0acc512: rcu: Add synchronize_sched_expedited() torture tests
> 03b042b: rcu: Add synchronize_sched_expedited() primitive
> c17ef45: rcu: Remove Classic RCU
> Please mention the magic words "please reset core/rcu to 240ebbf
> before applying these patches" in the mail to me, should i forget in
> the days to come.

Will do!

> (hm, what was i supposed to not forget? Weird.)

I can't remember. ;-)

Thanx, Paul

 \ /
  Last update: 2009-08-13 02:53    [W:0.054 / U:11.740 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site