On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 12:06:04PM +0100, Marco Elver wrote: > On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 12:00PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 07:12:54PM +0100, Marco Elver wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 09:54AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 05:14:39PM +0100, Marco Elver wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 01:49PM +0100, Marco Elver wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 12 Nov 2020 at 01:11, Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > This assert didn't fire yet, I just get more of the below. I'll keep > > > > > > > > rerunning, but am not too hopeful... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is bisection a possibility? > > > > > > > > > > > > I've been running a bisection for past ~12h, and am making slow > > > > > > progress. It might be another 12h, but I think it'll get there. > > > > > > > > > > Bisection gave me this: > > > > > > > > > > | git bisect start > > > > > | # bad: [c07b306d7fa5680777e2132662d2e6c19fb53579] kfence: Avoid stalling work queue task without allocations > > > > > | git bisect bad c07b306d7fa5680777e2132662d2e6c19fb53579 > > > > > | # good: [3cea11cd5e3b00d91caf0b4730194039b45c5891] Linux 5.10-rc2 > > > > > | git bisect good 27598e7e73260ed0b2917eb02d4a515ebb578313 > > > > > | # good: [3e5acbea719e66ef3be64fe74c99cc905ca697dc] Merge remote-tracking branch 'wireless-drivers-next/master' into master > > > > > | git bisect good 3e5acbea719e66ef3be64fe74c99cc905ca697dc > > > > > | # good: [491a5a9a2fea28353d99621b8abb83b6928b4e36] Merge remote-tracking branch 'sound-asoc/for-next' into master > > > > > | git bisect good 491a5a9a2fea28353d99621b8abb83b6928b4e36 > > > > > | # bad: [502f8643d6e21c7e370a0b75131130cc51609055] Merge remote-tracking branch 'phy-next/next' into master > > > > > | git bisect bad 502f8643d6e21c7e370a0b75131130cc51609055 > > > > > | # good: [6693cb1fa5ea7b91ec00f9404776a095713face5] Merge remote-tracking branch 'tip/auto-latest' into master > > > > > | git bisect good 6693cb1fa5ea7b91ec00f9404776a095713face5 > > > > > | # bad: [b790e3afead9357195b6d1e1b6cd9b3521503ad2] Merge branch 'tglx-pc.2020.10.30a' into HEAD > > > > > | git bisect bad b790e3afead9357195b6d1e1b6cd9b3521503ad2 > > > > > | # bad: [765b512bb3d639bfad7dd43c288ee085236c7267] Merge branches 'cpuinfo.2020.11.06a', 'doc.2020.11.06a', 'fixes.2020.11.02a', 'lockdep.2020.11.02a', 'tasks.2020.11.06a' and 'torture.2020.11.06a' into HEAD > > > > > | git bisect bad 765b512bb3d639bfad7dd43c288ee085236c7267 > > > > > | # good: [01f9e708d9eae6335ae9ff25ab09893c20727a55] tools/rcutorture: Fix BUG parsing of console.log > > > > > > > > So torture.2020.11.06a is OK. > > > > > > > > > | git bisect good 01f9e708d9eae6335ae9ff25ab09893c20727a55 > > > > > | # good: [1be6ab91e2db157faedb7f16ab0636a80745a073] srcu: Take early exit on memory-allocation failure > > > > > > > > As is fixes.2020.11.02a. > > > > > > > > > | git bisect good 1be6ab91e2db157faedb7f16ab0636a80745a073 > > > > > | # good: [65e9eb1ccfe56b41a0d8bfec651ea014968413cb] rcu: Prevent RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN() from swallowing the condition > > > > > > > > And lockdep.2020.11.02a. > > > > > > > > > | git bisect good 65e9eb1ccfe56b41a0d8bfec651ea014968413cb > > > > > | # good: [c386e29d43728778ddd642fa73cc582bee684171] docs/rcu: Update the call_rcu() API > > > > > > > > And doc.2020.11.06a. > > > > > > > > > | git bisect good c386e29d43728778ddd642fa73cc582bee684171 > > > > > | # good: [27c0f1448389baf7f309b69e62d4b531c9395e88] rcutorture: Make grace-period kthread report match RCU flavor being tested > > > > > > > > And the first three commits of tasks.2020.11.06a. > > > > > > > > > | git bisect good 27c0f1448389baf7f309b69e62d4b531c9395e88 > > > > > | # good: [3fcd6a230fa7d03bffcb831a81b40435c146c12b] x86/cpu: Avoid cpuinfo-induced IPIing of idle CPUs > > > > > > > > And cpuinfo.2020.11.06a. > > > > > > > > > | git bisect good 3fcd6a230fa7d03bffcb831a81b40435c146c12b > > > > > | # good: [75dc2da5ecd65bdcbfc4d59b9d9b7342c61fe374] rcu-tasks: Make the units of ->init_fract be jiffies > > > > > > > > And the remaining commit of tasks.2020.11.06a. > > > > > > > > > | git bisect good 75dc2da5ecd65bdcbfc4d59b9d9b7342c61fe374 > > > > > | # first bad commit: [765b512bb3d639bfad7dd43c288ee085236c7267] Merge branches 'cpuinfo.2020.11.06a', 'doc.2020.11.06a', 'fixes.2020.11.02a', 'lockdep.2020.11.02a', 'tasks.2020.11.06a' and 'torture.2020.11.06a' into HEAD > > > > > > > > > > This doesn't look very satisfying, given it's the merge commit. :-/ > > > > > > > > So each individual branch is just fine, but the merge of them is not. Fun. > > > > > > > > These have been passing quite a bit of rcutorture over here, including > > > > preemptible kernels running !SMP, but admittedly on x86 rather than ARMv8. > > > > > > Note that this is ARMv8 on QEMU on an x86 host i.e. emulated. And it's > > > really slow as a result. Together with a bunch of debug tools including > > > lockdep. > > > > Then I don't envy you the bisection process! ;-) > > > > > > One approach would be to binary-search the combinations of merges. > > > > Except that there are six of them, so there are 64 combinations, of > > > > which you have tested only 8 thus far (none, one each, and all). > > > > > > > > But are you sure that the bisection points labeled "good" really are good? > > > > For example, what is the distribution of first failure times in the > > > > points labeled "bad" vs. the runtime used to make a "good" determination? > > > > Alternatively, just try a longer run on each of the commits feeding into > > > > the merge point. > > > > > > Yeah, I'm having doubts, and this might be even more non-deterministic > > > that I thought and some 'good' could maybe be 'bad' if I had re-run > > > them? I don't know. One thing I can try is to make sure I run it more > > > than once, but I'm definitely not doing that manually, so let me try and > > > script something so I don't have to hand-hold the bisection overnight. > > > :-) > > > > I know that feeling. A similar experience motivated me to upgrade my > > tooling, with more upgrades in the queue. > > [.....] > > > > > > | [ 841.143527] arch_local_irq_restore+0x4/0x8 > > > > > > > > So we are just now restoring interrupts, hence our getting the > > > > interrupt at this point.. > > > > > > > > > | [ 841.147612] trace_preempt_on+0xf4/0x190 > > > > > > > > From within the trace code, which is apparently recording the fact > > > > that preemption is being enabled. > > > > > > > > > | [ 841.151656] preempt_schedule_common+0x12c/0x1b0 > > > > > | [ 841.155869] preempt_schedule.part.88+0x20/0x28 > > > > > | [ 841.160036] preempt_schedule+0x20/0x28 > > > > > > > > I was not aware that releasing a raw spinlock could result in a direct > > > > call to preempt_schedule(). > > > > > > > > > | [ 841.164051] _raw_spin_unlock_irq+0x80/0x90 > > > > > | [ 841.168139] rcu_gp_kthread+0xe5c/0x19a8 > > > > > > > > So the RCU grace-period kthread has spent many seconds attempting to > > > > release a lock? Am I reading this correctly? Mark Rutland, am I missing > > > > something here? > > > > And yes, this is the RCU grace-period kthread releasing a lock. > > > > I have no idea why that would take so long. It is acting like a > > self-deadlock or similar hang, except that in that case, lockdep should > > have complained before the RCU CPU stall warning rather than after. > > > > The only thing I can suggest is sprinkling lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled() > > calls hither and yon. All of the code that lockdep is complaining about > > runs in the context of the scheduling-clock interrupt, so interrupts > > had jolly well be disabled! ;-) > > > > Rerunning some of the allegedly good bisects might be more productive. > > Oof, so I reran bisection, and this time confirming 3x each good run. > This is what I get: > > | git bisect start > | # bad: [c07b306d7fa5680777e2132662d2e6c19fb53579] kfence: Avoid stalling work queue task without allocations > | git bisect bad c07b306d7fa5680777e2132662d2e6c19fb53579 > | # good: [3cea11cd5e3b00d91caf0b4730194039b45c5891] Linux 5.10-rc2 > | git bisect good 27598e7e73260ed0b2917eb02d4a515ebb578313 > | # good: [3e5acbea719e66ef3be64fe74c99cc905ca697dc] Merge remote-tracking branch 'wireless-drivers-next/master' into master > | git bisect good 3e5acbea719e66ef3be64fe74c99cc905ca697dc > | # good: [491a5a9a2fea28353d99621b8abb83b6928b4e36] Merge remote-tracking branch 'sound-asoc/for-next' into master > | git bisect good 491a5a9a2fea28353d99621b8abb83b6928b4e36 > | # bad: [502f8643d6e21c7e370a0b75131130cc51609055] Merge remote-tracking branch 'phy-next/next' into master > | git bisect bad 502f8643d6e21c7e370a0b75131130cc51609055 > | # good: [6693cb1fa5ea7b91ec00f9404776a095713face5] Merge remote-tracking branch 'tip/auto-latest' into master > | git bisect good 6693cb1fa5ea7b91ec00f9404776a095713face5 > | # good: [b790e3afead9357195b6d1e1b6cd9b3521503ad2] Merge branch 'tglx-pc.2020.10.30a' into HEAD > | git bisect good b790e3afead9357195b6d1e1b6cd9b3521503ad2 > | # bad: [7bd5bb161657717d576798f62b0e8d5b44653139] Merge remote-tracking branch 'drivers-x86/for-next' into master > | git bisect bad 7bd5bb161657717d576798f62b0e8d5b44653139 > | # bad: [e71eb4c4d42bcf36a3a7ede30fd320d47b3c8cb8] Merge remote-tracking branch 'xen-tip/linux-next' into master > | git bisect bad e71eb4c4d42bcf36a3a7ede30fd320d47b3c8cb8 > | # bad: [c0a41bf9dbc751692c8cb1a44bfd48e70e8bef7f] docs: Remove redundant "``" from Requirements.rst > | git bisect bad c0a41bf9dbc751692c8cb1a44bfd48e70e8bef7f > | # bad: [c293fb8f7de6c2fce11cb01a0218d668df326bcd] torture: Make --kcsan specify lockdep > | git bisect bad c293fb8f7de6c2fce11cb01a0218d668df326bcd > | # good: [5068ab7dcb6a526a401054ebe0d416f979efb3e1] rcutorture: Add testing for RCU's global memory ordering > | git bisect good 5068ab7dcb6a526a401054ebe0d416f979efb3e1 > | # good: [bea68a13bbbdc575a2c868dabd7b454c2eddc618] rcu/segcblist: Add additional comments to explain smp_mb() > | git bisect good bea68a13bbbdc575a2c868dabd7b454c2eddc618 > | # first bad commit: [c293fb8f7de6c2fce11cb01a0218d668df326bcd] torture: Make --kcsan specify lockdep > > Which clearly is ridiculous! So my guess is this probably had existed > before, but something in -next is making it more visible. > > Short of giving up, I can try your suggestion of sprinkling > lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled() everywhere, or if you have a patch to > apply that would give some other debug output you wanted I can run that > too. I don't have a patch, but if you are still seeing lots of workqueue lockups before the RCU CPU stall warning, I again suggest adding the backtrace as called out in my earlier email. The idea here is to see what is causing these lockups. I can send a formal patch for this if you wish, but today is crazy, so I cannot promise it before this evening, Pacific Time. Thanx, Paul
