Re: RCU qsmask !=0 warnings on large-SMP...

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 12:09:25PM +0100, Steffen Persvold wrote:
> On 1/26/2012 20:26, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 04:04:37PM +0100, Steffen Persvold wrote:
> >>On 1/26/2012 02:58, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >>>On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 11:48:58PM +0100, Steffen Persvold wrote:
> >>[]
> >>>
> >>>This looks like it will produce useful information, but I am not seeing
> >>>output from it below.
> >>>
> >>>							Thanx, Paul
> >>>
> >>>>This run it was CPU24 that triggered the issue :
> >>>>
> >>
> >>This line is the printout for the root level :
> >>
> >>>>[  231.572688] CPU 24, treason uncloaked, rsp @ ffffffff81a1cd80 (rcu_sched), rnp @ ffffffff81a1cd80(r) qsmask=0x1f, c=5132 g=5132 nc=5132 ng=5133 sc=5132 sg=5133 mc=5132 mg=5133
> >
> >OK, so the rcu_state structure (sc and sg) believes that grace period
> >5133 has started but not completed, as expected.  Strangely enough, so
> >does the root rcu_node structure (nc and ng) and the CPU's leaf rcu_node
> >structure (mc and mg).
> >
> >The per-CPU rcu_data structure (c and g) does not yet know about the
> >new 5133 grace period, as expected.
> >
> >So this is the code in kernel/rcutree.c:rcu_start_gp() that does the
> >initialization:
> >
> >	rcu_for_each_node_breadth_first(rsp, rnp) {
> >		raw_spin_lock(&rnp->lock);	/* irqs already disabled. */
> >		rcu_preempt_check_blocked_tasks(rnp);
> >		rnp->qsmask = rnp->qsmaskinit;
> >		rnp->gpnum = rsp->gpnum;
> >		rnp->completed = rsp->completed;
> >		if (rnp == rdp->mynode)
> >			rcu_start_gp_per_cpu(rsp, rnp, rdp);
> >		rcu_preempt_boost_start_gp(rnp);
> >		trace_rcu_grace_period_init(rsp->name, rnp->gpnum,
> >					    rnp->level, rnp->grplo,
> >					    rnp->grphi, rnp->qsmask);
> >		raw_spin_unlock(&rnp->lock);	/* irqs remain disabled. */
> >	}
> >
> >I am assuming that your debug prints are still invoked right after
> >the raw_spin_lock() above.  If so, I would expect nc==ng and mc==mg.
> >Even if your debug prints followed the assignments to rnp->gpnum and
> >rnp->completed, I would expect mc==mg for the root and internal rcu_node
> >structures.  But you say below that you get the same values throughout,
> >and in that case, I would expect the leaf rcu_node structure to show
> >something different than the root and internal structures.
> >
> >The code really does hold the root rcu_node lock at all calls to
> >rcu_gp_start(), so I don't see how we could be getting two CPUs in that
> >code at the same time, which would be one way that the rcu_node and
> >rcu_data structures might get advance notice of the new grace period,
> >but in that case, you would have more than one bit set in ->qsmask.
> >
> >So, any luck with the trace events for rcu_grace_period and
> >rcu_grace_period_init?
> >
> 
> I've successfully enabled them and it seems to work, however once
> the issue is triggered any attempt to access
> /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/trace just hangs :/

Hmmm...  I wonder if it waits for a grace period?

If it cannot be made to work, I can probably put together some
alternative diagnostics, but it will take me a day or three.

							Thanx, Paul

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/