On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 05:38:43PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> Hi Scott,
>
> Would you mind CC'ing rcu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on RCU related patches? I added it
> for this time.
>
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 05:57:28PM +0100, Scott Wood wrote:
> > Besides restoring behavior that used to be default on RT, this avoids
> > a deadlock on scheduler locks:
[snip]
> > [ 136.995194] 039: May be due to missing lock nesting notation
> >
> > [ 137.001115] 039: 3 locks held by rcu_torture_rea/13474:
> > [ 137.006341] 039: #0:
> > [ 137.008707] 039: 000000005f25146d
> > [ 137.012024] 039: (
> > [ 137.014131] 039: &p->pi_lock
> > [ 137.017015] 039: ){-...}
> > [ 137.019558] 039: , at: try_to_wake_up+0x39/0x920
> > [ 137.024175] 039: #1:
> > [ 137.026540] 039: 0000000011c8e51d
> > [ 137.029859] 039: (
> > [ 137.031966] 039: &rq->lock
> > [ 137.034679] 039: ){-...}
> > [ 137.037217] 039: , at: try_to_wake_up+0x241/0x920
> > [ 137.041924] 039: #2:
> > [ 137.044291] 039: 00000000098649b9
> > [ 137.047610] 039: (
> > [ 137.049714] 039: rcu_read_lock
> > [ 137.052774] 039: ){....}
> > [ 137.055314] 039: , at: cpuacct_charge+0x33/0x1e0
> > [ 137.059934] 039:
> > stack backtrace:
> > [ 137.063425] 039: CPU: 39 PID: 13474 Comm: rcu_torture_rea Kdump: loaded Tainted: G E 5.2.9-rt3.dbg+ #174
> > [ 137.074197] 039: Hardware name: Intel Corporation S2600BT/S2600BT, BIOS SE5C620.86B.01.00.0763.022420181017 02/24/2018
> > [ 137.084886] 039: Call Trace:
> > [ 137.087773] 039: <IRQ>
> > [ 137.090226] 039: dump_stack+0x5e/0x8b
> > [ 137.093997] 039: __lock_acquire+0x725/0x1100
> > [ 137.098358] 039: lock_acquire+0xc0/0x240
> > [ 137.102374] 039: ? try_to_wake_up+0x39/0x920
> > [ 137.106737] 039: _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x47/0x90
> > [ 137.111534] 039: ? try_to_wake_up+0x39/0x920
> > [ 137.115910] 039: try_to_wake_up+0x39/0x920
> > [ 137.120098] 039: rcu_read_unlock_special+0x65/0xb0
> > [ 137.124977] 039: __rcu_read_unlock+0x5d/0x70
> > [ 137.129337] 039: cpuacct_charge+0xd9/0x1e0
> > [ 137.133522] 039: ? cpuacct_charge+0x33/0x1e0
> > [ 137.137880] 039: update_curr+0x14b/0x420
> > [ 137.141894] 039: enqueue_entity+0x42/0x370
> > [ 137.146080] 039: enqueue_task_fair+0xa9/0x490
> > [ 137.150528] 039: activate_task+0x5a/0xf0
> > [ 137.154539] 039: ttwu_do_activate+0x4e/0x90
> > [ 137.158813] 039: try_to_wake_up+0x277/0x920
> > [ 137.163086] 039: irq_exit+0xb6/0xf0
[snip]
> > Signed-off-by: Scott Wood <swood@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > The prohibition on use_softirq should be able to be dropped once RT gets
> > the latest RCU code, but the question of what use_softirq should default
> > to on PREEMPT_RT remains.
> >
> > v3: Use IS_ENABLED
>
> Out of curiosity, does PREEMPT_RT use the NOCB callback offloading? If no,
> should it use it? IIUC, that does make the work the softirq have to do less
> work since the callbacks are executed in threaded context.
>
> If yes, can RT tolerate use_softirq=false and what could a realistic softirq
s/use_softirq=false/use_softirq=true/
thanks,
- Joel
