lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Nov]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/4] printk: Defer printing to irq work when we printed too much
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 11:57:33PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Thu 07-11-13 23:43:52, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > 2013/11/7 Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>:
> > > A CPU can be caught in console_unlock() for a long time (tens of seconds
> > > are reported by our customers) when other CPUs are using printk heavily
> > > and serial console makes printing slow. Despite serial console drivers
> > > are calling touch_nmi_watchdog() this triggers softlockup warnings
> > > because interrupts are disabled for the whole time console_unlock() runs
> > > (e.g. vprintk() calls console_unlock() with interrupts disabled). Thus
> > > IPIs cannot be processed and other CPUs get stuck spinning in calls like
> > > smp_call_function_many(). Also RCU eventually starts reporting lockups.
> > >
> > > In my artifical testing I can also easily trigger a situation when disk
> > > disappears from the system apparently because interrupt from it wasn't
> > > served for too long. This is why just silencing watchdogs isn't a
> > > reliable solution to the problem and we simply have to avoid spending
> > > too long in console_unlock() with interrupts disabled.
> > >
> > > The solution this patch works toward is to postpone printing to a later
> > > moment / different CPU when we already printed over X characters in
> > > current console_unlock() invocation. This is a crude heuristic but
> > > measuring time we spent printing doesn't seem to be really viable - we
> > > cannot rely on high resolution time being available and with interrupts
> > > disabled jiffies are not updated. User can tune the value X via
> > > printk.offload_chars kernel parameter.
> > >
> > > Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
> >
> > When a message takes tens of seconds to be printed, it usually means
> > we are in trouble somehow :)
> > I wonder what printk source can trigger such a high volume.
> Machines with tens of processors and thousands of scsi devices. When
> device discovery happens on boot, all processors are busily reporting new
> scsi devices and one poor looser is bound to do the printing for ever and
> ever until the machine dies...
>
> Or try running sysrq-t on a large machine with serial console connected. The
> machine will die because of lockups (although in this case I agree it is more
> of a problem of sysrq-t doing lots of printing in interrupt-disabled
> context).
>
> > May be cutting some huge message into smaller chunks could help? That
> > would re enable interrupts between each call.
> >
> > It's hard to tell without the context, but using other CPUs for
> > rescuing doesn't look like a good solution. What if the issue happens
> > in UP to begin with?
> The real trouble in practice is that while one cpu is doing printing,
> other cpus are appending to the printk buffer. So the cpu can be printing
> for a *long* time. So offloading the work to other cpus which are also
> appending messages seems as a fair thing to do.

Ok I see now.

But then this irq_work based solution won't work if, say, you run in full dynticks
mode. Also the hook on the timer interrupt is something that I wish we get rid
of on archs that can trigger self-IPIs.

Notwithstanding it's going to have scalibility issues as irq work then converges
to a single list for unbound works.

Offloading to a workqueue would be perhaps better, and writing to the serial
console could then be done with interrupts enabled, preemptible context, etc...



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-11-08 00:41    [W:0.099 / U:4.924 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site