lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Sep]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: linux-next-20110923: warning kernel/rcutree.c:1833
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 06:25:01PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 03:04:21AM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 09:48:04AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 03:06:25PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 02:26:37PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 10:08:26PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > > On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 03:24:09AM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > > > > > > [ 29.974288] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> > > > > > > [ 29.974308] WARNING: at /home/kas/git/public/linux-next/kernel/rcutree.c:1833 rcu_needs_cpu+0xff
> > > > > > > [ 29.974316] Hardware name: HP EliteBook 8440p
> > > > > > > [ 29.974321] Modules linked in: ip6table_filter ip6_tables ebtable_nat ebtables ipt_MASQUERADE iple_mangle xt_tcpudp iptable_filter ip_tables x_tables bridge stp llc rfcomm bnep acpi_cpufreq mperfckd fscache auth_rpcgss nfs_acl sunrpc ext2 loop kvm_intel kvm snd_hda_codec_hdmi snd_hda_codec_idtideodev media v4l2_compat_ioctl32 snd_seq bluetooth drm_kms_helper snd_timer tpm_infineon snd_seq_drt tpm_tis hp_accel intel_ips soundcore lis3lv02d tpm rfkill i2c_algo_bit snd_page_alloc i2c_core c16 sha256_generic aesni_intel cryptd aes_x86_64 aes_generic cbc dm_crypt dm_mod sg sr_mod sd_mod cd thermal_sys [last unloaded: scsi_wait_scan]
> > > > > > > [ 29.974517] Pid: 0, comm: kworker/0:1 Not tainted 3.1.0-rc7-next-20110923 #2
> > > > > > > [ 29.974521] Call Trace:
> > > > > > > [ 29.974525] <IRQ> [<ffffffff8104d72a>] warn_slowpath_common+0x7a/0xb0
> > > > > > > [ 29.974540] [<ffffffff8104d775>] warn_slowpath_null+0x15/0x20
> > > > > > > [ 29.974546] [<ffffffff810bffdf>] rcu_needs_cpu+0xff/0x110
> > > > > > > [ 29.974555] [<ffffffff8108396f>] tick_nohz_stop_sched_tick+0x13f/0x3d0
> > > > > > > [ 29.974563] [<ffffffff814329c0>] ? notifier_call_chain+0x70/0x70
> > > > > > > [ 29.974571] [<ffffffff81055622>] irq_exit+0xa2/0xd0
> > > > > > > [ 29.974578] [<ffffffff8101ee75>] smp_apic_timer_interrupt+0x85/0x1c0
> > > > > > > [ 29.974585] [<ffffffff814329c0>] ? notifier_call_chain+0x70/0x70
> > > > > > > [ 29.974592] [<ffffffff81436e1e>] apic_timer_interrupt+0x6e/0x80
> > > > > > > [ 29.974596] <EOI> [<ffffffff81297abd>] ? acpi_hw_read+0x4a/0x51
> > > > > > > [ 29.974609] [<ffffffff81087a07>] ? lock_acquire+0xa7/0x160
> > > > > > > [ 29.974615] [<ffffffff814329c0>] ? notifier_call_chain+0x70/0x70
> > > > > > > [ 29.974622] [<ffffffff81432a16>] __atomic_notifier_call_chain+0x56/0xb0
> > > > > > > [ 29.974631] [<ffffffff814329c0>] ? notifier_call_chain+0x70/0x70
> > > > > > > [ 29.974642] [<ffffffff8130ebb6>] ? cpuidle_idle_call+0x106/0x350
> > > > > > > [ 29.974651] [<ffffffff81432a81>] atomic_notifier_call_chain+0x11/0x20
> > > > > > > [ 29.974661] [<ffffffff81001233>] cpu_idle+0xe3/0x120
> > > > > > > [ 29.974672] [<ffffffff8141e34b>] start_secondary+0x1fd/0x204
> > > > > > > [ 29.974681] ---[ end trace 6c1d44095a3bb7c5 ]---
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Do the following help?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/9/17/47
> > > > > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/9/17/45
> > > > > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/9/17/43
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes. Thanks.
> > > >
> > > > I believe that doesn't really fix the issue. But the warning is not
> > > > easy to trigger. You simply haven't hit it by chance after applying
> > > > the patches.
> > > >
> > > > This happens when the idle notifier callchain is called in idle
> > > > and is interrupted in the middle. So we have called rcu_read_lock()
> > > > but haven't yet released with rcu_read_unlock(), and in the end
> > > > of the interrupt we call tick_nohz_stop_sched_tick() -> rcu_needs_cpu()
> > > > which is illegal while in an rcu read side critical section.
> > > >
> > > > No idea how to solve that. Any use of RCU after the tick gets stopped
> > > > is concerned here. If it is really required that rcu_needs_cpu() can't
> > > > be called in an rcu read side critical sectionn then it's not going
> > > > to be easy to fix.
> > > >
> > > > But I don't really understand that requirement. rcu_needs_cpu() simply
> > > > checks if we don't have callbacks to handle. So I don't understand how
> > > > read side is concerned. It's rather the write side.
> > > > The rule I can imagine instead is: don't call __call_rcu() once the tick is
> > > > stopped.
> > > >
> > > > But I'm certainly missing something.
> > > >
> > > > Paul?
> > >
> > > This is required for RCU_FAST_NO_HZ, which checks to see whether the
> > > current CPU can accelerate the current grace period so as to enter
> > > dyntick-idle mode sooner than it would otherwise. This takes effect
> > > in the situation where rcu_needs_cpu() sees that there are callbacks.
> > > It then notes a quiescent state (which is illegal in an RCU read-side
> > > critical section), calls force_quiescent_state(), and so on. For this
> > > to work, the current CPU must be in an RCU read-side critical section.
> >
> > You mean it must *not* be in an RCU read-side critical section (ie: in a
> > quiescent state)?
>
> Yes, you are right, it must -not- be in an RCU read-side critical section.
>
> > That assumption at least fails anytime in idle for the RCU
> > sched flavour given that preemption is disabled in the idle loop.
>
> Except that the idle loop is a quiescent state.
>
> > > If this cannot be made to work, another option is to call a new RCU
> > > function in the case where rcu_needs_cpu() returned false, but after
> > > the RCU read-side critical section has exited.
> >
> > You mean when rcu_needs_cpu() returns true (when we have callbacks
> > enqueued)?
>
> Yes. I definitely am having problems with polarity this weekend. :-/
>
> > > This new RCU function
> > > could then attempt to rearrange RCU so as to allow the CPU to enter
> > > dyntick-idle mode more quickly. It is more important for this to
> > > happen when the CPU is going idle than when it is executing a user
> > > process.
> > >
> > > So, is this doable?
> >
> > At least not when we have RCU sched callbacks enqueued, given preemption
> > is disabled. But that sounds plausible in order to accelerate the switch
> > to dyntick-idle mode when we only have rcu and/or rcu bh callbacks.
>
> Again, the idle loop is a quiescent state for RCU-sched.

We need to add an idle_cpu() check in rcu_read_lock_sched_held()
and rcu_read_lock_bh_held().


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-09-26 10:53    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans