On Wed, Oct 04, 2023 at 11:36:49AM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > On Tue, Oct 03, 2023 at 08:30:45PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 03, 2023 at 08:21:42PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 03, 2023 at 05:35:31PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 04, 2023 at 01:28:58AM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > This contains a fix for "SRCU: kworker hung in synchronize_srcu": > > > > > > > > > > http://lore.kernel.org/CANZk6aR+CqZaqmMWrC2eRRPY12qAZnDZLwLnHZbNi=xXMB401g@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > > > > > > > And a few cleanups. > > > > > > > > > > Passed 50 hours of SRCU-P and SRCU-N. > > > > > > > > > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/frederic/linux-dynticks.git > > > > > srcu/fixes > > > > > > > > > > HEAD: 7ea5adc5673b42ef06e811dca75e43d558cc87e0 > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Frederic > > > > > > > > Very good, and a big "Thank You!!!" to all of you! > > > > > > > > I queued this series for testing purposes, and have started a bunch of > > > > SRCU-P and SRCU-N tests on one set of systems, and a single SRCU-P and > > > > SRCU-N on another system, but with both scenarios resized to 40 CPU each. > > > > The 200*1h of SRCU-N and the 100*1h of SRCU-p passed other than the usual > > tick-stop errors. (Is there a patch for that one?) The 40-CPU SRCU-N > > run was fine, but the 40-CPU SRCU-P run failed due to the fanouts setting > > a maximum of 16 CPUs. So I started a 10-hour 40-CPU SRCU-P and a pair > > of 10-hour 16-CPU SRCU-N runs on one system, and 200*10h of SRCU-N and > > 100*10h of SRCU-P. > > > > I will let you know how it goes. > > Very nice! It might be worth testing the first patch alone as > well if we backport only this one. The 10-hour 40-CPU SRCU-P run and pair of 10-hour 16-CPU SRCU-N runs completed without failure. The others had some failures, but I need to look and see if any were unexpected. In the meantime, I started a two-hour 40-CPU SRCU-P run and a pair of one-hour 16-CPU SRCU-N runs on just that first commit. Also servicing SIGSHOWER and SIGFOOD. ;-) Thanx, Paul > Thanks! > > > > Thanx, Paul > > > > > > While that is in flight, a few questions: > > > > > > > > o Please check the Co-developed-by rules. Last I knew, it was > > > > necessary to have a Signed-off-by after each Co-developed-by. > > > > > > > > o Is it possible to get a Tested-by from the original reporter? > > > > Or is this not reproducible? > > > > > > > > o Is it possible to convince rcutorture to find this sort of > > > > bug? Seems like it should be, but easy to say... > > > > > > And one other thing... > > > > > > o What other bugs like this one are hiding elsewhere > > > in RCU? > > > > > > > o Frederic, would you like to include this in your upcoming > > > > pull request? Or does it need more time? > > > > > > Thanx, Paul > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > Frederic Weisbecker (5): > > > > > srcu: Fix callbacks acceleration mishandling > > > > > srcu: Only accelerate on enqueue time > > > > > srcu: Remove superfluous callbacks advancing from srcu_start_gp() > > > > > srcu: No need to advance/accelerate if no callback enqueued > > > > > srcu: Explain why callbacks invocations can't run concurrently > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > kernel/rcu/srcutree.c | 55 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------- > > > > > 1 file changed, 39 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
