On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 1:09 AM, Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 11:15:22PM +0100, Sedat Dilek wrote: >> On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 5:02 PM, Paul E. McKenney >> <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 01:34:53PM +0100, Sedat Dilek wrote: >> [...] >> >> Just FYI: Changed to the following settings: >> >> >> >> - Enable Preemptible Kernel (Low-Latency Desktop) >> >> - Enable Preemptible tree-based hierarchical RCU >> >> - Enable RCU priority boosting >> >> - Reset RCU CPU stall timeout to default (60 seconds) >> >> >> >> So far I see no RCU stalls in the logs and my system runs as expected. >> >> ( I have noticed here some "stalling" in the webbrowser, but I can do >> >> my daily business. ) >> > >> > OK, good to see some progress! >> > >> >> On 1st impression thing went fine, but after a while jobs like opening >> several tabs in firefox or doing a simple df command stalled the >> machine. No, my system even got frozen and required a brutal reset. >> >> >From the logs (more see file-attachment): >> >> Mar 26 19:58:40 tbox kernel: [ 1440.640060] INFO: task systemd:1 >> blocked for more than 120 seconds. >> Mar 26 19:58:40 tbox kernel: [ 1440.640074] "echo 0 > >> /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message. >> >> Following it -> NOPE >> $ echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs > > These are tasks that are blocked, not tasks that are consuming CPU. > >> > Is there a runaway process consuming CPU? ÂThe reason that I ask is that >> > an infinite loop in the kernel can result in a stall when PREEMPT=n >> > but is less likely to if PREEMPT=y. ÂCould you please check with "top", >> > "ps", or whatever? >> >> Unsure what you mean by this, as you can see from the logs, it's not >> only one special task "stalling". >> BTW, I have systemd here running. > > Right. ÂBut I need to know if there are tasks consuming lots of CPU, > which is different than tasks that are stalled for a long time. ÂLook > at the message: it says "blocked for more than 120 seconds", not > "running for more than 120 seconds". > > For example, if one of the RCU kthreads is consuming lots of CPU, that > would tell me that I should look for an RCU bug (and yank the patches > from -next in the meantime). ÂOn the other hand, if some other task is > consuming lots of CPU, then that would be a hint as to where to find > the bug. > >> >> I am not sure what the change to PREEMPT exactly mean in the end. >> >> ( Let's work with this new kernel and carefully check for possible >> >> side-effects. ) >> >> For example CONFIG_RCU_FAST_NO_HZ=y is now dropped, where the Kconfig >> >> descriptive text says some words on better energy saving. For a >> >> notebook this is no good. >> > >> > CONFIG_RCU_FAST_NO_HZ is of no use on a uniprocessor system, so OK >> > to disable it. ÂBut are you saying that CONFIG_RCU_FAST_NO_HZ=y >> > results in problems that are removed by CONFIG_RCU_FAST_NO_HZ=n? >> > That would be a surprise, and I need to know if this is the case. >> >> In my current setup (PREEMPT and TREE_PREEMPT_RCU) >> CONFIG_RCU_FAST_NO_HZ is not considered and set via Kconfig-system >> (see excerpt below). >> But when you say for UP it is of no use, I need no more info. > > OK, "of no use" is overstating things a bit. ÂBut CONFIG_RCU_FAST_NO_HZ's > main purpose is to get the last CPU into dyntick-idle state > (CONFIG_NO_HZ), which is most useful if the system has several CPUs. > >> Might be good to add some recommended (and/or useless) kernel-config >> settings to RCU/UP.txt? >> >> [ init/Kconfig ] >> config RCU_FAST_NO_HZ >> Â Â Â Â bool "Accelerate last non-dyntick-idle CPU's grace periods" >> Â Â Â Â depends on TREE_RCU && NO_HZ && SMP >> Â Â Â Â default n > > The "depends on TREE_RCU && NO_HZ && SMP" already excludes it from > UP kernel builds, so no need to document. > >> >> I have also questions to some Kconfig dependencies, for example why I >> >> can't select TREE_PREEMPT_RCU if CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY=y, etc. >> >> Intended? >> > >> > Yes. ÂThere is no point in TREE_PREEMPT_RCU unless PREEMPT=y. >> > >> >> OK. >> >> >> Maybe I collect all my askings in a separate email to RCU folks and ML >> >> and do not disturb further people from other sub-trees. >> >> >> >> I enjoyed to read the numerous docs in Documentation/RCU/ (and noticed >> >> some typos as well). >> >> The RCU folk gave the word "FAQ" a new meaning: Frequenty Asked >> >> Questions & Q*uiz* :-). >> >> >> >> Thanks for the helpful hints and explanations from the RCU folks! >> > >> > Glad you liked them! Â;-) >> > >> >> Other sub-trees lack of no good or up2date docs. >> >> >> - Sedat - >> >> >> >> P.S.: Current RCU and HZ kernel-config settings >> >> >> >> # grep RCU /boot/config-$(uname -r) >> >> # RCU Subsystem >> >> CONFIG_TREE_PREEMPT_RCU=y >> >> CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU=y >> >> CONFIG_RCU_TRACE=y >> >> CONFIG_RCU_FANOUT=32 >> >> # CONFIG_RCU_FANOUT_EXACT is not set >> >> CONFIG_TREE_RCU_TRACE=y >> >> CONFIG_RCU_BOOST=y >> >> CONFIG_RCU_BOOST_PRIO=1 >> >> CONFIG_RCU_BOOST_DELAY=500 >> >> # CONFIG_SPARSE_RCU_POINTER is not set >> >> # CONFIG_RCU_TORTURE_TEST is not set >> >> CONFIG_RCU_CPU_STALL_TIMEOUT=60 >> >> CONFIG_RCU_CPU_STALL_VERBOSE=y >> >> >> >> # grep _HZ /boot/config-$(uname -r) >> >> CONFIG_NO_HZ=y >> >> # CONFIG_HZ_100 is not set >> >> CONFIG_HZ_250=y >> >> # CONFIG_HZ_300 is not set >> >> # CONFIG_HZ_1000 is not set >> >> CONFIG_HZ=250 >> > >> > OK, thank you for the info! >> > >> >> N.P. >> >> > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â ÂThanx, Paul >> > >> >> I guees I will revert step-by-step the RCU commits in linux-next and report. >> This weekend I wanted to enhance Debian's live-cd framework with >> overlayfs support and a customized kernel. >> But then came RCU :-(. > > Well, if it turns out to be a problem in RCU I will certainly apologize. > No, that's not so dramatic. Dealing with this RCU issue has nice side-effects: I remembered (and finally did) to use a reduced kernel-config set. The base for it I created with 'make localmodconfig' and did some manual fine-tuning afterwards (throw out media, rc, dvd, unneeded FSs, etc.). Also, I can use fresh gcc-4.6 (4.6.0-1) from the official Debian repos. So, I started building with "revert-rcu-patches/0001-Revert-rcu-introduce-kfree_rcu.patch". I will let you know. - Sedat - >> Can you say some words to kfree_rcu.2011.03.25b (rcu/kfree_rcu) GIT branch(es)? > > These are just applying Lia Jiangshan's kfree_rcu() to a number of places > in the kernel. ÂYou can safely ignore them. > > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â ÂThanx, Paul > >> - Sedat - > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
