lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [May]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: cpu stopper threads and load balancing leads to deadlock
On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 06:30:26AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-05-03 at 18:45 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 09:12:31AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 04:44:50PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 04:16:55PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, 2018-05-03 at 15:56 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 03:32:39PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dang. With $subject fix applied as well..
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's a NO then... :-(
> > > > >
> > > > > Could say who cares about oddball offline wakeup stat. <cringe>
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, nobody.. but I don't want to have to change the wakeup code to
> > > > deal with this if at all possible. That'd just add conditions that are
> > > > 'always' false, except in this exceedingly rare circumstance.
> > > >
> > > > So ideally we manage to tell RCU that it needs to pay attention while
> > > > we're doing this here thing, which is what I thought RCU_NONIDLE() was
> > > > about.
> > >
> > > One straightforward approach would be to provide a arch-specific
> > > Kconfig option that tells notify_cpu_starting() not to bother invoking
> > > rcu_cpu_starting(). Then x86 selects this Kconfig option and invokes
> > > rcu_cpu_starting() itself early enough to avoid splats.
> > >
> > > See the (untested, probably does not even build) patch below.
> > >
> > > I have no idea where to insert either the "select" or the call to
> > > rcu_cpu_starting(), so I left those out. I know that putting the
> > > call too early will cause trouble, but I have no idea what constitutes
> > > "too early". :-/
> >
> > Something like so perhaps? Mike, can you play around with that? Could
> > burn your granny and eat your cookies.
>
> Did this get queued anywhere?

I have not queued it, but given Peter's Signed-off-by and your Tested-by
I would be happy to do so.

Thanx, Paul

> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/main.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/main.c
> > index 7468de429087..07360523c3ce 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/main.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/main.c
> > @@ -793,6 +793,9 @@ void mtrr_ap_init(void)
> >
> > if (!use_intel() || mtrr_aps_delayed_init)
> > return;
> > +
> > + rcu_cpu_starting(smp_processor_id());
> > +
> > /*
> > * Ideally we should hold mtrr_mutex here to avoid mtrr entries
> > * changed, but this routine will be called in cpu boot time,
> > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > index 2a734692a581..4dab46950fdb 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > @@ -3775,6 +3775,8 @@ int rcutree_dead_cpu(unsigned int cpu)
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(int, rcu_cpu_started);
> > +
> > /*
> > * Mark the specified CPU as being online so that subsequent grace periods
> > * (both expedited and normal) will wait on it. Note that this means that
> > @@ -3796,6 +3798,11 @@ void rcu_cpu_starting(unsigned int cpu)
> > struct rcu_node *rnp;
> > struct rcu_state *rsp;
> >
> > + if (per_cpu(rcu_cpu_started, cpu))
> > + return;
> > +
> > + per_cpu(rcu_cpu_started, cpu) = 1;
> > +
> > for_each_rcu_flavor(rsp) {
> > rdp = per_cpu_ptr(rsp->rda, cpu);
> > rnp = rdp->mynode;
> > @@ -3852,6 +3859,8 @@ void rcu_report_dead(unsigned int cpu)
> > preempt_enable();
> > for_each_rcu_flavor(rsp)
> > rcu_cleanup_dying_idle_cpu(cpu, rsp);
> > +
> > + per_cpu(rcu_cpu_started, cpu) = 0;
> > }
> >
> > /* Migrate the dead CPU's callbacks to the current CPU. */
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-05-17 16:03    [W:0.122 / U:1.588 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site