On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 04:44:25PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 02:13:29PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 12:39:15PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote: > > > On 10/24/2014 12:13 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 08:28:40AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote: > > > >> > On 10/23/2014 03:58 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > >>> > > On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 02:55:43PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote: > > > >>>>> > >> > On 10/23/2014 02:39 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > >>>>>>> > >>> > > On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 10:35:10PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>> > >>>> > >> On 10/13/2014 01:35 PM, Dave Jones wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > >>> oday in "rcu stall while fuzzing" news: > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > >>> INFO: rcu_preempt detected stalls on CPUs/tasks: > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > >>> Tasks blocked on level-0 rcu_node (CPUs 0-3): P766 P646 > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > >>> Tasks blocked on level-0 rcu_node (CPUs 0-3): P766 P646 > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > >>> (detected by 0, t=6502 jiffies, g=75434, c=75433, q=0) > > > >>>>>>>>> > >>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > >>>> > >> I've complained about RCU stalls couple days ago (in a different context) > > > >>>>>>>>> > >>>> > >> on -next. I guess whatever causing them made it into Linus's tree? > > > >>>>>>>>> > >>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > >>>> > >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/10/11/64 > > > >>>>>>> > >>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > >>> > > And on that one, I must confess that I don't see where the RCU read-side > > > >>>>>>> > >>> > > critical section might be. > > > >>>>>>> > >>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > >>> > > Hmmm... Maybe someone forgot to put an rcu_read_unlock() somewhere. > > > >>>>>>> > >>> > > Can you reproduce this with CONFIG_PROVE_RCU=y? > > > >>>>> > >> > > > > >>>>> > >> > Paul, if that was directed to me - Yes, I see stalls with CONFIG_PROVE_RCU > > > >>>>> > >> > set and nothing else is showing up before/after that. > > > >>> > > Indeed it was directed to you. ;-) > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > Does the following crude diagnostic patch turn up anything? > > > >> > > > > >> > Nope, seeing stalls but not seeing that pr_err() you added. > > > > OK, color me confused. Could you please send me the full dmesg or a > > > > pointer to it? > > > > > > Attached. > > > > Thank you! I would complain about the FAULT_INJECTION messages, but > > they don't appear to be happening all that frequently. > > > > The stack dumps do look different here. I suspect that this is a real > > issue in the VM code. > > And to that end... The filemap_map_pages() function does have loop over > a list of pages. I wonder if the rcu_read_lock() should be moved into > the radix_tree_for_each_slot() loop. CCing linux-mm for their thoughts, > though it looks to me like the current radix_tree_for_each_slot() wants > to be under RCU protection. But I am not seeing anything that requires > all iterations of the loop to be under the same RCU read-side critical > section. Maybe something like the following patch? Just following up, did the patch below help? Thanx, Paul > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > mm: Attempted fix for RCU CPU stall warning > > It appears that filemap_map_pages() can stay in a single RCU read-side > critical section for a very long time if given a large area to map. > This could result in RCU CPU stall warnings. This commit therefore breaks > the read-side critical section into per-iteration critical sections, taking > care to make sure that the radix_tree_for_each_slot() call itself remains > in an RCU read-side critical section, as required. > > Reported-by: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@xxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > diff --git a/mm/filemap.c b/mm/filemap.c > index 14b4642279f1..f78f144fb41f 100644 > --- a/mm/filemap.c > +++ b/mm/filemap.c > @@ -2055,6 +2055,8 @@ skip: > next: > if (iter.index == vmf->max_pgoff) > break; > + rcu_read_unlock(); > + rcu_read_lock(); > } > rcu_read_unlock(); > } -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>