lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Apr]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
Subjectrcu_process_callbacks irqsoff latency caused by taking spinlock with irqs disabled
Hi Paul,

Just looking at latencies, and RCU showed up as one of the maximums.
This is a 2 socket system with (176 CPU threads). Just doing a
`make -j 352` kernel build. Got a max latency of 3ms. I don't think
that's anything to worry about really, but I wanted to check the
cause.

# tracer: irqsoff
#
# irqsoff latency trace v1.1.5 on 4.16.0-01530-g43d1859f0994
# --------------------------------------------------------------------
# latency: 3055 us, #19/19, CPU#135 | (M:server VP:0, KP:0, SP:0 HP:0 #P:176)
# -----------------
# | task: cc1-58689 (uid:1003 nice:0 policy:0 rt_prio:0)
# -----------------
# => started at: rcu_process_callbacks
# => ended at: _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore
#
#
# _------=> CPU#
# / _-----=> irqs-off
# | / _----=> need-resched
# || / _---=> hardirq/softirq
# ||| / _--=> preempt-depth
# |||| / delay
# cmd pid ||||| time | caller
# \ / ||||| \ | /
<...>-58689 135d.s. 0us : rcu_process_callbacks
<...>-58689 135d.s. 1us : cpu_needs_another_gp <-rcu_process_callbacks
<...>-58689 135d.s. 2us : rcu_segcblist_future_gp_needed <-cpu_needs_another_gp
<...>-58689 135d.s. 3us#: _raw_spin_lock <-rcu_process_callbacks
<...>-58689 135d.s. 3047us : rcu_start_gp <-rcu_process_callbacks
<...>-58689 135d.s. 3048us : rcu_advance_cbs <-rcu_start_gp
<...>-58689 135d.s. 3049us : rcu_segcblist_pend_cbs <-rcu_advance_cbs
<...>-58689 135d.s. 3049us : rcu_segcblist_advance <-rcu_advance_cbs
<...>-58689 135d.s. 3050us : rcu_accelerate_cbs <-rcu_start_gp
<...>-58689 135d.s. 3050us : rcu_segcblist_pend_cbs <-rcu_accelerate_cbs
<...>-58689 135d.s. 3051us : rcu_segcblist_accelerate <-rcu_accelerate_cbs
<...>-58689 135d.s. 3052us : trace_rcu_future_gp.isra.0 <-rcu_accelerate_cbs
<...>-58689 135d.s. 3052us : trace_rcu_future_gp.isra.0 <-rcu_accelerate_cbs
<...>-58689 135d.s. 3053us : rcu_start_gp_advanced.isra.35 <-rcu_start_gp
<...>-58689 135d.s. 3053us : cpu_needs_another_gp <-rcu_start_gp_advanced.isra.35
<...>-58689 135d.s. 3054us : _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore <-rcu_process_callbacks
<...>-58689 135d.s. 3055us : _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore
<...>-58689 135d.s. 3056us : trace_hardirqs_on <-_raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore
<...>-58689 135d.s. 3061us : <stack trace>

So it's taking a contende lock with interrupts disabled:

static void
__rcu_process_callbacks(struct rcu_state *rsp)
{
unsigned long flags;
bool needwake;
struct rcu_data *rdp = raw_cpu_ptr(rsp->rda);

WARN_ON_ONCE(!rdp->beenonline);

/* Update RCU state based on any recent quiescent states. */
rcu_check_quiescent_state(rsp, rdp);

/* Does this CPU require a not-yet-started grace period? */
local_irq_save(flags);
if (cpu_needs_another_gp(rsp, rdp)) {
raw_spin_lock_rcu_node(rcu_get_root(rsp)); /* irqs disabled. */
needwake = rcu_start_gp(rsp);
raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore_rcu_node(rcu_get_root(rsp), flags);
if (needwake)
rcu_gp_kthread_wake(rsp);
} else {
local_irq_restore(flags);
}

Because irqs are disabled before taking the lock, we can't spin with
interrupts enabled.

cpu_needs_another_gp needs interrupts off to prevent races with normal
callback registry, but that doesn't seem to be preventing any wider
races in this code, because we immediately re-enable interrupts anyway
if no gp is needed. So an interrupt can come in right after that and
queue something up.

So then the question is whether it's safe-albeit-racy to call with
interrupts ensabled? Would be nice to move it to a spin_lock_irqsave.

Thanks,
Nick

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-04-05 01:35    [W:0.060 / U:33.204 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site