On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 01:49:21AM +0000, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 04:59:44PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 07:47:50PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Sep 26, 2022, at 6:32 PM, Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 09:02:21PM +0000, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > >> On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 09:32:44PM +0200, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > > >> [...]
> > > >>>>>> On my KVM machine the boot time is affected:
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> <snip>
> > > >>>>>> [ 2.273406] e1000 0000:00:03.0 eth0: Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Connection
> > > >>>>>> [ 11.945283] e1000 0000:00:03.0 ens3: renamed from eth0
> > > >>>>>> [ 22.165198] sr 1:0:0:0: [sr0] scsi3-mmc drive: 4x/4x cd/rw xa/form2 tray
> > > >>>>>> [ 22.165206] cdrom: Uniform CD-ROM driver Revision: 3.20
> > > >>>>>> [ 32.406981] sr 1:0:0:0: Attached scsi CD-ROM sr0
> > > >>>>>> [ 104.115418] process '/usr/bin/fstype' started with executable stack
> > > >>>>>> [ 104.170142] EXT4-fs (sda1): mounted filesystem with ordered data mode. Quota mode: none.
> > > >>>>>> [ 104.340125] systemd[1]: systemd 241 running in system mode. (+PAM +AUDIT +SELINUX +IMA +APPARMOR +SMACK +SYSVINIT +UTMP +LIBCRYPTSETUP +GCRYPT +GNUTLS +ACL +XZ +LZ4 +SECCOMP +BLKID +ELFUTILS +KMOD -IDN2 +IDN -PCRE2 default-hierarchy=hybrid)
> > > >>>>>> [ 104.340193] systemd[1]: Detected virtualization kvm.
> > > >>>>>> [ 104.340196] systemd[1]: Detected architecture x86-64.
> > > >>>>>> [ 104.359032] systemd[1]: Set hostname to <pc638>.
> > > >>>>>> [ 105.740109] random: crng init done
> > > >>>>>> [ 105.741267] systemd[1]: Reached target Remote File Systems.
> > > >>>>>> <snip>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> 2 - 11 and second delay is between 32 - 104. So there are still users which must
> > > >>>>>> be waiting for "RCU" in a sync way.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> I was wondering if you can compare boot logs and see which timestamp does the
> > > >>>>> slow down start from. That way, we can narrow down the callback. Also another
> > > >>>>> idea is, add "trace_event=rcu:rcu_callback,rcu:rcu_invoke_callback
> > > >>>>> ftrace_dump_on_oops" to the boot params, and then manually call
> > > >>>>> "tracing_off(); panic();" from the code at the first printk that seems off in
> > > >>>>> your comparison of good vs bad. For example, if "crng init done" timestamp is
> > > >>>>> off, put the "tracing_off(); panic();" there. Then grab the serial console
> > > >>>>> output to see what were the last callbacks that was queued/invoked.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> We do seem to be in need of some way to quickly and easily locate the
> > > >>>> callback that needed to be _flush() due to a wakeup.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> <snip>
> > > >>> diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
> > > >>> index aeea9731ef80..fe1146d97f1a 100644
> > > >>> --- a/kernel/workqueue.c
> > > >>> +++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
> > > >>> @@ -1771,7 +1771,7 @@ bool queue_rcu_work(struct workqueue_struct *wq, struct rcu_work *rwork)
> > > >>>
> > > >>> if (!test_and_set_bit(WORK_STRUCT_PENDING_BIT, work_data_bits(work))) {
> > > >>> rwork->wq = wq;
> > > >>> - call_rcu(&rwork->rcu, rcu_work_rcufn);
> > > >>> + call_rcu_flush(&rwork->rcu, rcu_work_rcufn);
> > > >>> return true;
> > > >>> }
> > > >>>
> > > >>> <snip>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> ?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> But it does not fully solve my boot-up issue. Will debug tomorrow further.
> > > >>
> > > >> Ah, but at least its progress, thanks. Could you send me a patch to include
> > > >> in the next revision with details of this?
> > > >>
> > > >>>> Might one more proactive approach be to use Coccinelle to locate such
> > > >>>> callback functions? We might not want -all- callbacks that do wakeups
> > > >>>> to use call_rcu_flush(), but knowing which are which should speed up
> > > >>>> slow-boot debugging by quite a bit.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Or is there a better way to do this?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> I am not sure what Coccinelle is. If we had something automated that measures
> > > >>> a boot time and if needed does some profiling it would be good. Otherwise it
> > > >>> is a manual debugging mainly, IMHO.
> > > >>
> > > >> Paul, What about using a default-off kernel CONFIG that splats on all lazy
> > > >> call_rcu() callbacks that do a wake up. We could use the trace hooks to do it
> > > >> in kernel I think. I can talk to Steve to get ideas on how to do that but I
> > > >> think it can be done purely from trace events (we might need a new
> > > >> trace_end_invoke_callback to fire after the callback is invoked). Thoughts?
> > > >
> > > > Could you look for wakeups invoked between trace_rcu_batch_start() and
> > > > trace_rcu_batch_end() that are not from interrupt context? This would
> > > > of course need to be associated with a task rather than a CPU.
> > >
> > > Yes this sounds good, but we also need to know if the callbacks are lazy or not since wake-up is ok from a non lazy one. I think I’ll need a table to track that at queuing time.
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> > > > Note that you would need to check for wakeups from interrupt handlers
> > > > even with the extra trace_end_invoke_callback(). The window where an
> > > > interrupt handler could do a wakeup would be reduced, but not eliminated.
> > >
> > > True! Since this is a debugging option, can we not just disable interrupts across callback invocation?
> >
> > Not without terminally annoying lockdep, at least for any RCU callbacks
> > doing things like spin_lock_bh().
> >
>
> Sorry if my last email bounced. Looks like my iPhone betrayed me this once ;)
>
> I was thinking something like this:
> 1. Put a flag in rcu_head to mark CBs as lazy.
> 2. Add a trace_rcu_invoke_callback_end() trace point.
>
> Both #1 and #2 can be a debug CONFIG option. #2 can be a tracepoint and not
> exposed if needed.
>
> 3. Put an in-kernel probe on both trace_rcu_invoke_callback_start() and
> trace_rcu_invoke_callback_end(). In the start probe, set a per-task flag if
> the current CB is lazy. In the end probe, clear it.
>
> 4. Put an in-kernel probe on trace_rcu_sched_wakeup().
>
> Splat in the wake up probe if:
> 1. Hard IRQs are on.
> 2. The per-cpu flag is set.
>
> #3 actually does not even need probes if we can directly call the functions
> from the rcu_do_batch() function.
This is fine for an experiment or a debugging session, but a solution
based totally on instrumentation would be better for production use.
> I'll work on it in the morning and also look into Vlad's config.
Sounds good!
Thanx, Paul
