On Thu 2023-05-25 13:08:04, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 9:27 AM Petr Mladek <pmladek@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri 2023-05-19 10:18:38, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> > > Implement a hardlockup detector that doesn't doesn't need any extra
> > > arch-specific support code to detect lockups. Instead of using
> > > something arch-specific we will use the buddy system, where each CPU
> > > watches out for another one. Specifically, each CPU will use its
> > > softlockup hrtimer to check that the next CPU is processing hrtimer
> > > interrupts by verifying that a counter is increasing.
> > >
> > > --- a/kernel/watchdog.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/watchdog.c
> > > @@ -85,7 +85,7 @@ __setup("nmi_watchdog=", hardlockup_panic_setup);
> > >
> > > #endif /* CONFIG_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR */
> > >
> > > -#if defined(CONFIG_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_PERF)
> > > +#if defined(CONFIG_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_COUNTS_HRTIMER)
> > >
> > > static DEFINE_PER_CPU(atomic_t, hrtimer_interrupts);
> > > static DEFINE_PER_CPU(int, hrtimer_interrupts_saved);
> > > @@ -106,6 +106,14 @@ notrace void arch_touch_nmi_watchdog(void)
> > > }
> > > EXPORT_SYMBOL(arch_touch_nmi_watchdog);
> > >
> > > +void watchdog_hardlockup_touch_cpu(unsigned int cpu)
> > > +{
> > > + per_cpu(watchdog_hardlockup_touched, cpu) = true;
> > > +
> > > + /* Match with smp_rmb() in watchdog_hardlockup_check() */
> > > + smp_wmb();
> >
> > It is great that you described where the related barrier is.
> >
> > Another important information is what exactly is synchronized.
> > And I am actually not sure what we are synchronizing here.
> >
> > My understanding is that a write barrier should synchronize
> > related writes, for example:
> >
> > X = ...;
> > /* Make sure that X is modified before Y */
> > smp_wmb();
> > Y = ...;
> >
> > And the related read barrier should synchronize the related reads,
> > for example:
> >
> > if (test(Y)) {
> > /*
> > * Make sure that we use the updated X when
> > * we saw the updated Y.
> > */
> > smp_rmb();
> > do_something(X);
> > }
> >
> > IMHO, we do not need any barrier here because we have only
> > one variable "watchdog_hardlockup_touched" here.
> > watchdog_hardlockup_check() will either see the updated value
> > or not. But it does not synchronize it against any other
> > variables or values.
>
> Fair. These barriers were present in the original buddy lockup
> detector that we've been carrying in ChromeOS but that doesn't
> necessarily mean that they were there for a good reason.
>
> Reasoning about weakly ordered memory always makes my brain hurt and I
> never feel confident at the end that I got the right answer and, of
> course, this is coupled by the fact that if I have a logic error in my
> reasoning that it might cause a rare / subtle bug. :(
Sure. Lockless code is complicated.
> When possible I
> try to write code that uses full blown locks to make it easier to
> reason about (even if less efficient),
Makes sense. There should be a good reason to use lockless code
because it is complicated to do it right and maintain.
> but that's not necessarily
> possible here. While we obviously don't just want to sprinkle barriers
> all over the code, IMO it's not a terrible sin to put a barrier in a
> case where it makes it easier to reason about the order of things.
I understand this. Well, it is always important to describe the
the reason why the barrier was added there. Even when it is wrong,
it gives a clue what was the motivation. Otherwise, it is hard
to do any changes on the code later.
I guess that it might be more problematic for you because
you probably are not the original author.
> In any case, I guess in this case I would worry about some sort of
> ordering race when enabling / disabling the buddy lockup detector. At
> the end of the buddy's watchdog_hardlockup_enable() /
> watchdog_hardlockup_disable() we adjust the "watchdog_cpus" which
> changes buddy assignments. Without a barrier, I _think_ it would be
> possible for a new CPU to notice the change in buddies without
> noticing the touch. Does that match your understanding? Now when
> reasoning about CPUs going online/offline we need to consider this
> extra case and we have to decide if there's any chance it could lead
> to a false lockup detection. With the memory barriers here, it's a
> little easier to think about.
This makes sense. I did not think about the hotplug scenario.
Well, I suggest to move the barriers into the buddy code and describe
it there. It does not make sense to use the barriers for the perf
hardlockup.
I mean something like:
diff --git a/kernel/watchdog_buddy.c b/kernel/watchdog_buddy.c
index fee45af2e5bd..ebe71dcb55e6 100644
--- a/kernel/watchdog_buddy.c
+++ b/kernel/watchdog_buddy.c
@@ -52,6 +52,13 @@ void watchdog_hardlockup_enable(unsigned int cpu)
if (next_cpu < nr_cpu_ids)
watchdog_hardlockup_touch_cpu(next_cpu);
+ /*
+ * Makes sure that watchdog is touched on this CPU before
+ * other CPUs could see it in watchdog_cpus. The counter
+ * part is in watchdog_buddy_check_hardlockup().
+ */
+ smp_wmb();
+
cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, &watchdog_cpus);
}
@@ -69,6 +76,13 @@ void watchdog_hardlockup_disable(unsigned int cpu)
if (next_cpu < nr_cpu_ids)
watchdog_hardlockup_touch_cpu(next_cpu);
+ /*
+ * Makes sure that watchdog is touched on the next CPU before
+ * this CPU disappear in watchdog_cpus. The counter part is in
+ * watchdog_buddy_check_hardlockup().
+ */
+ smp_wmb();
+
cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, &watchdog_cpus);
}
@@ -89,5 +103,12 @@ void watchdog_buddy_check_hardlockup(unsigned long hrtimer_interrupts)
if (next_cpu >= nr_cpu_ids)
return;
+ /*
+ * Make sure that the watchdog was touched on next CPU when
+ * watchdog_next_cpu() returned another one because of
+ * a change in watchdog_hardlockup_enable()/disable().
+ */
+ smp_rmb();
+
watchdog_hardlockup_check(next_cpu, NULL);
}
> Did the above convince you about keeping the barriers? If so, do you
> have any suggested comment that would make it clearer?
>
>
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > static bool is_hardlockup(unsigned int cpu)
> > > {
> > > int hrint = atomic_read(&per_cpu(hrtimer_interrupts, cpu));
> > > @@ -443,11 +454,15 @@ static enum hrtimer_restart watchdog_timer_fn(struct hrtimer *hrtimer)
> > > struct pt_regs *regs = get_irq_regs();
> > > int duration;
> > > int softlockup_all_cpu_backtrace = sysctl_softlockup_all_cpu_backtrace;
> > > + unsigned long hrtimer_interrupts;
> > >
> > > if (!watchdog_enabled)
> > > return HRTIMER_NORESTART;
> > >
> > > - watchdog_hardlockup_kick();
> > > + hrtimer_interrupts = watchdog_hardlockup_kick();
> > > +
> > > + /* test for hardlockups */
> >
> > I would omit the comment. It is not valid when perf detector is used.
> > And checking the buddy is clear from the function name.
> >
> > > + watchdog_buddy_check_hardlockup(hrtimer_interrupts);
> >
> > I would personally move this into watchdog_hardlockup_kick().
> > watchdog_timer_fn() is already complex enough. And checking
> > the buddy when kicking a CPU makes sense.
>
> Sure, I'll add that to my list of things to follow-up with.
>
>
> > Also I would not pass "hrtimer_interrupts". I guess that it is
> > just an optimization. It is an extra churn in the code. IMHO,
> > is is not wort it. This code does not need to be super optimized.
>
> The main reason I did it is that "hrtimer_interrupts" is static to
> watchdog.c now. If I don't pass it in then I have to make it
> non-static and add it to the header. That also means anyone looking at
> the variable and figuring out how it is read/written needs to go
> search for other people that reference it. I feel like it's cleaner to
> just pass it in. If you feel strongly that I should change this then
> let me know, but otherwise I'll plan to leave this how I have it.
I do not have strong opinion. For me, the more important change is
to move watchdog_buddy_check_hardlockup() into
watchdog_hardlockup_kick(). watchdog_timer_fn() is already too complex.
>
> > > /* kick the softlockup detector */
> > > if (completion_done(this_cpu_ptr(&softlockup_completion))) {
> > > --- a/lib/Kconfig.debug
> > > +++ b/lib/Kconfig.debug
> > > @@ -1035,10 +1035,55 @@ config BOOTPARAM_SOFTLOCKUP_PANIC
> > >
> > > Say N if unsure.
> > >
> > > -config HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_PERF
> > > +# Both the "perf" and "buddy" hardlockup detectors count hrtimer
> > > +# interrupts. This config enables functions managing this common code.
> > > +config HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_COUNTS_HRTIMER
> > > bool
> > > select SOFTLOCKUP_DETECTOR
> > >
> > > +config HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_PERF
> > > + bool
> > > + depends on HAVE_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_PERF
> > > + select HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_COUNTS_HRTIMER
> > > +
> > > +config HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_BUDDY
> > > + bool
> > > + depends on SMP
> > > + select HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_COUNTS_HRTIMER
> > > +
> > > +# For hardlockup detectors you can have one directly provided by the arch
> > > +# or use a "non-arch" one. If you're using a "non-arch" one that is
> > > +# further divided the perf hardlockup detector (which, confusingly, needs
> > > +# arch-provided perf support) and the buddy hardlockup detector (which just
> > > +# needs SMP). In either case, using the "non-arch" code conflicts with
> > > +# the NMI watchdog code (which is sometimes used directly and sometimes used
> > > +# by the arch-provided hardlockup detector).
> > > +config HAVE_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_NON_ARCH
> > > + bool
> > > + depends on (HAVE_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_PERF || SMP) && !HAVE_NMI_WATCHDOG
> > > + default y
> > > +
> > > +config HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_PREFER_BUDDY
> > > + bool "Prefer the buddy CPU hardlockup detector"
> > > + depends on HAVE_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_NON_ARCH && HAVE_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_PERF && SMP
> >
> > Huh, I have big troubles to scratch my head around this check:
> >
> > HAVE_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_NON_ARCH depends on HAVE_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_PERF and SMP
> >
> > and this depends on HAVE_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_NON_ARCH and again
> > on HAVE_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_PERF and SMP.
>
> The goal is to have "HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_PREFER_BUDDY" to show up as
> an option if there is an option _other_ than the buddy. If there's not
> more than one hardlockup detector to pick from then there's no reason
> to ask the person configuring the kernel which one they'd prefer. At
> the moment, if you have an "arch" lockup detector then you're stuck
> with it, so you only get a choice if a "perf" detector is available
> and you've got SMP.
>
> Ah, so I guess this could be simplified to:
>
> depends on HAVE_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_PERF && SMP
Yes, this is much better.
> OK, I'll add that to the list.
>
>
> > > + help
> > > + Say Y here to prefer the buddy hardlockup detector over the perf one.
> > > +
> > > + With the buddy detector, each CPU uses its softlockup hrtimer
> > > + to check that the next CPU is processing hrtimer interrupts by
> > > + verifying that a counter is increasing.
> > > +
> > > + This hardlockup detector is useful on systems that don't have
> > > + an arch-specific hardlockup detector or if resources needed
> > > + for the hardlockup detector are better used for other things.
> > > +
> > > +# This will select the appropriate non-arch hardlockdup detector
> > > +config HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_NON_ARCH
> > > + bool
> > > + depends on HAVE_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_NON_ARCH
> > > + select HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_BUDDY if !HAVE_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_PERF || HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_PREFER_BUDDY
> > > + select HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_PERF if HAVE_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_PERF && !HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_PREFER_BUDDY
> > > +
> > > #
> > > # Enables a timestamp based low pass filter to compensate for perf based
> > > # hard lockup detection which runs too fast due to turbo modes.
> > > @@ -1053,9 +1098,10 @@ config HARDLOCKUP_CHECK_TIMESTAMP
> > > config HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR
> > > bool "Detect Hard Lockups"
> > > depends on DEBUG_KERNEL && !S390
> >
> > Is there any reason why S390 could not or do not want to use the buddy
> > hardlockup detector.
>
> This isn't a new dependency, but it's a good question. Looking at the
> git history, I see commit dea20a3fbdd0 ("[PATCH] Disable
> DETECT_SOFTLOCKUP for s390"). ...and it looks like the softlockup
> detector still says it's broken on s390. That would mean that the
> buddy detector is broken too.
It seems that s390 wanted to disable the watchdog completely, see
the commit dea20a3fbdd08e5 ("[PATCH] Disable DETECT_SOFTLOCKUP for s390")
because they got too many false positives.
>
> > > - depends on HAVE_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_PERF || HAVE_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_ARCH
> > > + depends on HAVE_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_NON_ARCH || HAVE_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_ARCH
> > > select LOCKUP_DETECTOR
> > > - select HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_PERF if HAVE_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_PERF
> > > + select HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_NON_ARCH if HAVE_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_NON_ARCH
> >
> > Anyway, the configuration of the hard lockup detectors is insane and
> > this patchset makes it even worse, especially the new
> > HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_NON_ARCH stuff.
> >
> > It seems that sparc, powerpc and s390 are somehow special. Do you
> > still have in mind how they are distinguished using the Kconfig
> > variables?
> >
> > For example, I am pretty confused by the meaning of HAVE_NMI_WATCHDOG.
> >
> > And sparc has its own variant of
> > watchdog_hardlockup_enable()/disable(). It means that it is
> > arch-specific. Does it work with the 13th patch which made
> > watchdog_hardlockup_enable()/disable() to be watchdog-hardlockup-type
> > specific? Is is somehow related to HAVE_NMI_WATCHDOG?
> > Does this replace the entire watchdog only only the enable part?
> >
> > I think that we need to make this more straightforward. But I first
> > need to understand the existing maze of config variables.
>
> I agree that it's confusing. I'm obviously biased, but IMO it's less
> confusing after my patchset than before. ;-) The state of the world
> before my patchset set a pretty low bar.
>
> As far as I understand it, at an architecture-level you can choose any
> _ONE_ of the following:
>
> a) Implement bits needed for the the "perf" hardlockup detector. x86
> has done this, some configs of powerpc do this, and arm64 now after my
> patch series. This is HAVE_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_PERF.
>
> b) Implement your own totally separate hardlockup detector that
> doesn't use any of the common "perf" code but still looks the same to
> userspace (same sysctls, etc). Only powerpc does this (in some
> configs). As per conversations in previous versions of my patch
> series, apparently powerpc's version is quite fancy and maybe someday
> people can move some of these features to the common code. This is
> HAVE_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_ARCH.
>
> c) Don't implement the full features of a hardlockup detector but
> still have the basics. In the very least, I think it doesn't support
> the sysctls "hardlockup_panic" and "hardlockup_all_cpu_backtrace". It
> doesn't support the kernel command line parameter "nmi_watchdog=". I
> don't know for sure if there are any other differences. Only sparc64
> does this. This is HAVE_NMI_WATCHDOG. Confusingly,
> HAVE_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_ARCH selects HAVE_NMI_WATCHDOG.
>
> d) Don't implement _any_ hardlockup detector of any sort. After my
> patchset you can still end up with "buddy" if you have SMP.
>
> One thing that would probably help would be to bring sparc64 to a full
> "arch" hardlockup implementation and then get rid of the special case.
> That seems a bit outside my scope, though if someone wanted to post
> patches for that I'd be willing to give them a review.
It would be nice but it might be problematic if we do not have
access to the hardware.
> I guess other than that, the best we could try to do is to rename some
> configs and/or add some subconfigs to describe certain features? Maybe
> HAVE_NMI_WATCHDOG => HAVE_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_ARCH_BASIC_FEATURES
> would help? I'd love to come up with a better name for
> HAVE_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_NON_ARCH but I couldn't come up with one.
> Maybe the unwieldy "HAVE_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_THAT_COUNTS_HRTIMER"?
Renaming the config variables seems to be the best solution at the moment.
IMHO, it would be nice to have something like:
+ CONFIG_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR for code shared by all hardlockup
detectors
+ CONFIG_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_PERF for code using kernel/watchdog_perf.c
+ CONFIG_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_BUDDY for code using
kernel/watchdog_buddy.c
+ HAVE_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_PERF set by architectures that support
using kernel/watchdog_perf.c
+ HAVE_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_ARCH set by architectures that have
alternative implementation of the hardlockup detector
+ CONFIG_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_PREFER_BUDDY
Allow to prefer the buddy detector when _PERF or _ARCH
is available as well.
+ HAVE_HARDLOCKUP_PANIC
+ HAVE_HARDLOCKUP_ALL_CPU_BACKTRACE
set when the earchitecture support these features and
used for the sysfs interface
> If you have concrete suggestions for what would be cleaner, let me
> know and I can queue up a patch. ...or I'm happy to review a patch.
I am not sure how complicated it would be to rename the config
variables to somehing sane. I am sorry I do not have time to
prepare the patches at the moment.
I'll let Andrew to decide if he would require this cleanup to accept
the patchset.
Best Regards,
Petr
