On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 08:19:04AM +0200, Bruno Prémont wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 14:49:33 "Paul E. McKenney" wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 02:30:02PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > 2011/4/25 Bruno Prémont <bonbons@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> > > >
> > > > Between 1-slabinfo and 2-slabinfo some values increased (a lot) while a few
> > > > ones did decrease. Don't know which ones are RCU-affected and which ones are
> > > > not.
> > >
> > > It really sounds as if the tiny-rcu kthread somehow just stops
> > > handling callbacks. The ones that keep increasing do seem to be all
> > > rcu-free'd (but I didn't really check).
> > >
> > > The thing is shown as running:
> > >
> > > root 6 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? R 22:14 0:00 \_
> > > [rcu_kthread]
> > >
> > > but nothing seems to happen and the CPU time hasn't increased at all.
> > >
> > > I dunno. Makes no sense to me, but yeah, I'm definitely blaming
> > > tiny-rcu. Paul, any ideas?
> >
> > So the only ways I know for something to be runnable but not run on
> > a uniprocessor are:
> >
> > 1. The CPU is continually busy with higher-priority work.
> > This doesn't make sense in this case because the system
> > is idle much of the time.
> >
> > 2. The system is hibernating. This doesn't make sense, otherwise
> > "ps" wouldn't run either.
> >
> > Any others ideas on how the heck a process can get into this state?
> > (I have thus far been completely unable to reproduce it.)
> >
> > The process in question has a loop in rcu_kthread() in kernel/rcutiny.c.
> > This loop contains a wait_event_interruptible(), waits for a global flag
> > to become non-zero.
> >
> > It is awakened by invoke_rcu_kthread() in that same file, which
> > simply sets the flag to 1 and does a wake_up(), all with hardirqs
> > disabled.
> >
> > Hmmm... One "hail mary" patch below. What it does is make rcu_kthread
> > run at normal priority rather than at real-time priority. This is
> > not for inclusion -- it breaks RCU priority boosting. But well worth
> > trying.
> >
> > Thanx, Paul
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/rcutiny.c b/kernel/rcutiny.c
> > index 0c343b9..4551824 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcutiny.c
> > +++ b/kernel/rcutiny.c
> > @@ -314,11 +314,15 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rcu_barrier_sched);
> > */
> > static int __init rcu_spawn_kthreads(void)
> > {
> > +#if 0
> > struct sched_param sp;
> > +#endif
> >
> > rcu_kthread_task = kthread_run(rcu_kthread, NULL, "rcu_kthread");
> > +#if 0
> > sp.sched_priority = RCU_BOOST_PRIO;
> > sched_setscheduler_nocheck(rcu_kthread_task, SCHED_FIFO, &sp);
> > +#endif
> > return 0;
> > }
> > early_initcall(rcu_spawn_kthreads);
>
> I will give that patch a shot on Wednesday evening (European time) as I
> wont have enough time in front of the affected box until then to do any
> deeper testing. (same for trying to out with the other -rc kernels as
> suggested by Mike)
Thank you for both of these!!!
> Though I will use the few minutes I have this evening to try to fetch
> kernel traces of running tasks with sysrq+t which may eventually give
> us a hint at where rcu_thread is stuck/waiting.
This would be very helpful to me!
For my part, I will use some plane time today to stare at my code some
more and see what bugs I can find.
Linus, in the meantime, please feel free to revert 687d7a960 (rcu:
restrict TREE_RCU to SMP builds with !PREEMPT), which would allow anyone
not wanting to help chase this down to get on with their lives.
Thanx, Paul
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>