lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Mar]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [Bug 199003] console stalled, cause Hard LOCKUP.
I'll Cc blockdev

On (03/27/18 08:36), bugzilla-daemon@bugzilla.kernel.org wrote:
> > --- Comment #17 from sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com ---
> > On (03/26/18 13:05), bugzilla-daemon@bugzilla.kernel.org wrote:
> > > Therefore the serial console is actually pretty fast. It seems that the
> > > deadline
> > > 10ms-per-character is not in the game here.
> >
> > As the name suggests this is dmesg - content of logbuf. We can't tell
> > anything about serial consoles speed from it.
>
> Grrr, you are right. It would be interesting to see the output from
> the serial port as well.
>
> Anyway, it does not change the fact that printing so many same lines is
> useless. The throttling still would make sense and probably would
> solve the problem.

You are right.

Looking at backtraces (https://bugzilla.kernel.org/attachment.cgi?id=274953&action=edit)
there *probably* was just one CPU doing all printk-s and all printouts. And
there was one CPU waiting for that printing CPU to unlock the queue spin_lock.

The printing CPU was looping in scsi_request_fn() picking up requests
and calling sdev_printk() for each of them, because the device was
offline. Given that serial console is not very fast, that we called
serial console under queue spin_lock and the number of printks called,
it was enough to lockup the CPU which was spining on queue spin_lock and
to hard lockup the system.

scsi_request_fn() does unlock the queue lock later, but not in that
!scsi_device_online(sdev) error case.

scsi_request_fn()
{
for (;;) {
int rtn;
/*
* get next queueable request. We do this early to make sure
* that the request is fully prepared even if we cannot
* accept it.
*/
req = blk_peek_request(q);
if (!req)
break;

if (unlikely(!scsi_device_online(sdev))) {
sdev_printk(KERN_ERR, sdev,
"rejecting I/O to offline device\n");
scsi_kill_request(req, q);
continue;
^^^^^^^^^ still under spinlock
}
}

I'd probably just unlock/lock queue lock, rather than ratelimit printk-s,
before `continue'. Dunno.

James, Martin, what do you think?

-ss

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-03-27 12:38    [W:0.031 / U:0.352 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site