On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 11:32 PM, Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 02:26:15PM +0200, Sedat Dilek wrote: >> On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 7:07 AM, Paul E. McKenney >> <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 08:25:29PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: >> >> On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 03:30:34AM +0200, Sedat Dilek wrote: >> >> > 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: >> > >> > [ . . . ] >> > >> >> > >> 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. >> >> >> >> And please also check for tasks consuming all available CPU. >> > >> > And I still cannot reproduce with the full RCU stack (but based off of >> > 2.6.38 rather than -next). ÂNevertheless, if you would like to try a >> > speculative patch, here you go. >> >> You are right and my strategy on handling the (possible RCU?) issue is wrong. >> Surely, you tested your RCU stuff in your own repo and everything >> might be OK on top of stable 2.6.38. >> Linux-next gets daily updates from a lot of different trees, so there >> might be interferences with other stuff. >> Please, understand I am interested in finding out what is the cause >> for my issues, my aim is not to blame you. > > I am not worried about blame, but rather getting the bug fixed. ÂThe > bug might be in RCU, it might be elsewhere, or it might be a combination > of problems in RCU and elsewhere. > > So the first priority is locating the bug. > > And that is why I have been asking you over and over to PLEASE take > a look at what tasks are consuming CPU while the problem is occuring. > The reason that I have been asking over and over is that the symptoms > you describe are likely caused by a loop in some kernel code. ÂYes, > there might be other causes, but this is the most likely. ÂGiven that > TREE_PREEMPT_RCU behaves better than TREE_RCU, it is likely that this > loop is in preemptible code with irqs enabled. ÂTherefore, the process > accounting code is likely to be able to see the CPU consumption, and > you should be able to see it via the "top" or "ps" commands -- or via > any number of other tools. > > For example, if the problem is confined to RCU, you would likely see > the "rcuc0" or "rcun0" tasks consuming lots of CPU. ÂThis would narrow > the problem down to a few tens of lines of code. ÂIf the problem was > in some other kthread, then identifying the kthread would very likely > narrow things down as well. > > So, please do take a look to see what taks consuming CPU. > >> As I was wrong and want to be 99.9% sure it is RCU stuff, I reverted >> all (18) RCU patches from linux-next (next-20110325) by keeping the >> RCU|PREEMPT|HZ settings from last working next-20110323. > > Makes sense. > >> $ egrep 'RCU|PREEMPT|_HZ' /boot/config-2.6.38-next20110325-7-686-iniza >> # RCU Subsystem >> CONFIG_TREE_RCU=y >> # CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU is not set >> # CONFIG_RCU_TRACE is not set >> CONFIG_RCU_FANOUT=32 >> # CONFIG_RCU_FANOUT_EXACT is not set >> CONFIG_RCU_FAST_NO_HZ=y >> # CONFIG_TREE_RCU_TRACE is not set >> CONFIG_PREEMPT_NOTIFIERS=y >> CONFIG_NO_HZ=y >> # CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE is not set >> CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY=y >> # CONFIG_PREEMPT is not set >> # 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 >> # CONFIG_SPARSE_RCU_POINTER is not set >> # CONFIG_RCU_TORTURE_TEST is not set >> # CONFIG_RCU_CPU_STALL_DETECTOR is not set >> >> I will work and stress this kernel before doing any step-by-step >> revert of RCU stuff. >> >> Thanks for your patch, I applied it on top of "naked" next-20110325, >> but I still see call-traces. > > Thank you very much for testing it! > > I intend to keep that patch, as it should increase robustness in other > situations. > > 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 - >> >> >> >> > 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 >> > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> > >> > rcu: further lower priority in rcu_yield() >> > >> > Although rcu_yield() dropped from real-time to normal priority, there >> > is always the possibility that the competing tasks have been niced. >> > So nice to 19 in rcu_yield() to help ensure that other tasks have a >> > better chance of running. >> > >> > Â ÂSigned-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> > >> > diff --git a/kernel/rcutree.c b/kernel/rcutree.c >> > index 759f54b..5477764 100644 >> > --- a/kernel/rcutree.c >> > +++ b/kernel/rcutree.c >> > @@ -1492,6 +1492,7 @@ static void rcu_yield(void (*f)(unsigned long), unsigned long arg) >> > Â Â Â Âmod_timer(&yield_timer, jiffies + 2); >> > Â Â Â Âsp.sched_priority = 0; >> > Â Â Â Âsched_setscheduler_nocheck(current, SCHED_NORMAL, &sp); >> > + Â Â Â set_user_nice(current, 19); >> > Â Â Â Âschedule(); >> > Â Â Â Âsp.sched_priority = RCU_KTHREAD_PRIO; >> > Â Â Â Âsched_setscheduler_nocheck(current, SCHED_FIFO, &sp); >> > > Sorry, my attempt was to identify and isolate the culprit commit. Reverting all RCU patches resulted in a stable system, the following 8 kernels with reduced k-config setup where all built using this kernel. All kernels used TREE_RCU (see above), I did not change it (no mixing/switching to PREEMPT and TREE_PREEMPT_RCU). ( I doubt that TREE_PREEMPT_RCU was some kind of more stable here. ) The culprit commit is bc56163ebd4580199ac7e63f5e160bf139ba0dd6 (from rcu/next GIT tree): "rcu: move TREE_RCU from softirq to kthread" I can do parallelly a tar job, open 20 tabs in firefox and run a flash video in one of them (I did this several times). [ setup.log ] ... (+) OK revert-rcu-patches/0001-Revert-rcu-introduce-kfree_rcu.patch (+) OK revert-rcu-patches/0002-Revert-rcu-fix-spelling.patch (+) OK revert-rcu-patches/0003-Revert-rcu-fix-rcu_cpu_kthread_task-synchronization.patch (+) OK revert-rcu-patches/0004-Revert-rcu-call-__rcu_read_unlock-in-exit_rcu-for-tr.patch (+) OK revert-rcu-patches/0005-Revert-rcu-Converge-TINY_RCU-expedited-and-normal-bo.patch (+) OK revert-rcu-patches/0006-Revert-rcu-remove-useless-boosted_this_gp-field.patch (+) OK revert-rcu-patches/0007-Revert-rcu-code-cleanups-in-TINY_RCU-priority-boosti.patch (+) OK revert-rcu-patches/0008-Revert-rcu-Switch-to-this_cpu-primitives.patch (+) OK revert-rcu-patches/0009-Revert-rcu-Use-WARN_ON_ONCE-for-DEBUG_OBJECTS_RCU_HE.patch (+) OK revert-rcu-patches/0010-Revert-rcu-Enable-DEBUG_OBJECTS_RCU_HEAD-from-PREEMP.patch (+) OK revert-rcu-patches/0011-Revert-rcu-Add-boosting-to-TREE_PREEMPT_RCU-tracing.patch (+) OK revert-rcu-patches/0012-Revert-rcu-eliminate-unused-boosting-statistics.patch (+) OK revert-rcu-patches/0013-Revert-rcu-priority-boosting-for-TREE_PREEMPT_RCU.patch (+) OK revert-rcu-patches/0014-Revert-rcu-move-TREE_RCU-from-softirq-to-kthread.patch ... Hope this helps to narrow down the problem. As I kept all kernels I can have a look at the tasks consuming high CPU usage tomorrow. - 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
