On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 04:59:50PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 12:25 PM Michel Lespinasse
> <michel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 10:20:53AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 12:43:06PM -0700, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jun 08, 2022 at 04:27:27PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > > Commit c227233ad64c ("intel_idle: enable interrupts before C1 on
> > > > > Xeons") wrecked intel_idle in two ways:
> > > > >
> > > > > - must not have tracing in idle functions
> > > > > - must return with IRQs disabled
> > > > >
> > > > > Additionally, it added a branch for no good reason.
> > > > >
> > > > > Fixes: c227233ad64c ("intel_idle: enable interrupts before C1 on Xeons")
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > After this change was introduced, I am seeing "WARNING: suspicious RCU
> > > > usage" when booting a kernel with debug options compiled in. Please
> > > > see the attached dmesg output. The issue starts with commit 32d4fd5751ea
> > > > and is still present in v5.19-rc8.
> > > >
> > > > I'm not sure, is this too late to fix or revert in v5.19 final ?
> > >
> > > I finally got a chance to take a quick look at this.
> > >
> > > The rcu_eqs_exit() function is making a lockdep complaint about
> > > being invoked with interrupts enabled. This function is called from
> > > rcu_idle_exit(), which is an expected code path from cpuidle_enter_state()
> > > via its call to rcu_idle_exit(). Except that rcu_idle_exit() disables
> > > interrupts before invoking rcu_eqs_exit().
> > >
> > > The only other call to rcu_idle_exit() does not disable interrupts,
> > > but it is via rcu_user_exit(), which would be a very odd choice for
> > > cpuidle_enter_state().
> > >
> > > It seems unlikely, but it might be that it is the use of local_irq_save()
> > > instead of raw_local_irq_save() within rcu_idle_exit() that is causing
> > > the trouble. If this is the case, then the commit shown below would
> > > help. Note that this commit removes the warning from lockdep, so it
> > > is necessary to build the kernel with CONFIG_RCU_EQS_DEBUG=y to enable
> > > equivalent debugging.
> > >
> > > Could you please try your test with the -rce commit shown below applied?
> >
> > Thanks for looking into it.
> >
> > After checking out Peter's commit 32d4fd5751ea,
> > cherry picking your commit ed4ae5eff4b3,
> > and setting CONFIG_RCU_EQS_DEBUG=y in addition of my usual debug config,
> > I am now seeing this a few seconds into the boot:
> >
> > [ 3.010650] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> > [ 3.010651] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 0 at kernel/sched/clock.c:397 sched_clock_tick+0x27/0x60
> > [ 3.010657] Modules linked in:
> > [ 3.010660] CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 5.19.0-rc1-test-00005-g1be22fea0611 #1
> > [ 3.010662] Hardware name: LENOVO 30BFS44D00/1036, BIOS S03KT51A 01/17/2022
> > [ 3.010663] RIP: 0010:sched_clock_tick+0x27/0x60
> > [ 3.010665] Code: 1f 40 00 53 eb 02 5b c3 66 90 8b 05 2f c3 40 01 85 c0 74 18 65 8b 05 60 88 8f 4e 85 c0 75 0d 65 8b 05 a9 85 8f 4e 85 c0 74 02 <0f> 0b e8 e2 6c 89 00 48 c7 c3 40 d5 02 00
> > 89 c0 48 03 1c c5 c0 98
> > [ 3.010667] RSP: 0000:ffffffffb2803e28 EFLAGS: 00010002
> > [ 3.010670] RAX: 0000000000000001 RBX: ffffc8ce7fa07060 RCX: 0000000000000001
> > [ 3.010671] RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: ffffffffb268dd21 RDI: ffffffffb269ab13
> > [ 3.010673] RBP: 0000000000000001 R08: ffffffffffc300d5 R09: 000000000002be80
> > [ 3.010674] R10: 000003625b53183a R11: ffffa012b802b7a4 R12: ffffffffb2aa9e80
> > [ 3.010675] R13: ffffffffb2aa9e00 R14: 0000000000000001 R15: 0000000000000000
> > [ 3.010677] FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffffa012b8000000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
> > [ 3.010678] CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
> > [ 3.010680] CR2: ffffa012f81ff000 CR3: 0000000c99612001 CR4: 00000000003706f0
> > [ 3.010681] DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
> > [ 3.010682] DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
> > [ 3.010683] Call Trace:
> > [ 3.010685] <TASK>
> > [ 3.010688] cpuidle_enter_state+0xb7/0x4b0
> > [ 3.010694] cpuidle_enter+0x29/0x40
> > [ 3.010697] do_idle+0x1d4/0x210
> > [ 3.010702] cpu_startup_entry+0x19/0x20
> > [ 3.010704] rest_init+0x117/0x1a0
> > [ 3.010708] arch_call_rest_init+0xa/0x10
> > [ 3.010711] start_kernel+0x6d8/0x6ff
> > [ 3.010716] secondary_startup_64_no_verify+0xce/0xdb
> > [ 3.010728] </TASK>
> > [ 3.010729] irq event stamp: 44179
> > [ 3.010730] hardirqs last enabled at (44179): [<ffffffffb2000ccb>] asm_sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x1b/0x20
> > [ 3.010734] hardirqs last disabled at (44177): [<ffffffffb22003f0>] __do_softirq+0x3f0/0x498
> > [ 3.010736] softirqs last enabled at (44178): [<ffffffffb2200332>] __do_softirq+0x332/0x498
> > [ 3.010738] softirqs last disabled at (44171): [<ffffffffb16c760b>] irq_exit_rcu+0xab/0xf0
> > [ 3.010741] ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]---
>
> Can you please give this patch a go:
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-pm/patch/Yt/AxPFi88neW7W5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> ?
I tried, but it didn't change the picture for me.
I'm not sure if that was the patch you meant to send though, as it
seems it's only adding a tracepoint so shouldn't make any difference
if I'm not actually using the tracepoint ?
