On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 08:42:39AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 11/16/21 8:41 AM, syzbot wrote: > > syzbot suspects this issue was fixed by commit: > > > > commit b60876296847e6cd7f1da4b8b7f0f31399d59aa1 > > Author: Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> > > Date: Fri Oct 15 21:03:52 2021 +0000 > > > > block: improve layout of struct request > > No functional changes in that patch, so looks like a fluky bisection. I am seeing an intermittent (and rather strange) stall warnings on v5.16-rc1. This is a self-detected stall from the idle loop. The reason that this is strange is that the usual reason that a CPU stalls in the idle loop is due to a long-running interrupt, in which case you would expect other CPUs to detect the stall. Reproduce using RCU's TRE07 scenario, except that the MTBF looks to be several hundred hours. But I ran this scenario long enough on v5.15-rc* to be confident that this stall warning is a regression introduced recently. And the reason is that the CPU, despite being in the idle loop, is not marked as idle from an RCU perspective (see the "idle=d59/0/0x1"): rcu: 0-...!: (13 ticks this GP) idle=d59/0/0x1 softirq=281261 /281261 fqs=1 (t=2199037 jiffies g=249449 q=5) NMI backtrace for cpu 0 CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 5.16.0-rc1 #4571 Hardware name: Red Hat KVM/RHEL-AV, BIOS 1.13.0-2.module_el8.5.0+ 746+bbd5d70c 04/01/2014 Call Trace: <IRQ> dump_stack_lvl+0x33/0x42 nmi_cpu_backtrace.cold.6+0x30/0x70 ? lapic_can_unplug_cpu+0x70/0x70 nmi_trigger_cpumask_backtrace+0xbf/0xd0 rcu_dump_cpu_stacks+0xc0/0x120 rcu_sched_clock_irq.cold.110+0x15a/0x312 ? get_nohz_timer_target+0x60/0x190 ? lock_timer_base+0x62/0x80 ? account_process_tick+0xd4/0x160 ? tick_sched_handle.isra.24+0x40/0x40 update_process_times+0x8e/0xc0 tick_sched_handle.isra.24+0x30/0x40 tick_sched_timer+0x6a/0x80 __hrtimer_run_queues+0xfc/0x2a0 hrtimer_interrupt+0x105/0x220 ? resched_curr+0x1e/0xc0 __sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x7a/0x160 sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x85/0xb0 </IRQ> <TASK> asm_sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x12/0x20 RIP: 0010:default_idle+0xb/0x10 Code: ff 48 89 df e8 16 5c 90 ff eb d7 e8 bf 82 ff ff cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc eb 07 0f 00 2d df 92 41 00 fb f4 <c3> 0f 1f 40 00 65 48 8b 04 25 00 ad 01 00 f0 80 48 02 20 48 8b 10 RSP: 0018:ffffffff9dc03e98 EFLAGS: 00000202 RAX: ffffffff9d3ed200 RBX: 0000000000000000 RCX: 0000000000000000 RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: ffffffff9da3e0a1 RDI: ffffffff9da683ae RBP: ffffffff9de86050 R08: 00000000e141ad57 R09: ffffa03c5f229d40 R10: 0000000000002400 R11: 0000000000002400 R12: 0000000000000000 R13: 0000000000000000 R14: ffffffffffffffff R15: ffffffff9dc14940 ? __cpuidle_text_start+0x8/0x8 ? __cpuidle_text_start+0x8/0x8 default_idle_call+0x28/0xd0 do_idle+0x1fb/0x290 cpu_startup_entry+0x14/0x20 start_kernel+0x659/0x680 secondary_startup_64_no_verify+0xc2/0xcb </TASK> The usual reason for this odd situation is that someone forgot an irq_enter() or added an extra irq_exit(). Or likewise for a number of similar functions that tell RCU to start/stop ignoring the current CPU: nmi_enter(), nmi_exit(), rcu_*_enter(), rcu_*_exit(), and so on. Adding the x86 list on CC. Thanx, Paul
