Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] rcu/exp: Use NMI to get the backtrace of cpu_curr(other_cpu) first

[Leizhen (ThunderTown)]

On 2022/8/4 8:07, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 02, 2022 at 10:06:00AM +0800, Leizhen (ThunderTown) wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2022/8/2 7:14, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jul 30, 2022 at 06:23:28PM +0800, Zhen Lei wrote:
>>>> The backtrace of cpu_curr(other_cpu) is unwinded based on the 'fp' saved
>>>> during its last switch-out. For the most part, it's out of date. So try
>>>> to use NMI to get the backtrace first, just like those functions in
>>>> "tree_stall.h" did. Such as rcu_dump_cpu_stacks().
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> Much better, thank you!
>>>
>>>> ---
>>>>  kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h | 3 ++-
>>>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h
>>>> index 0f70f62039a9090..21381697de23f0b 100644
>>>> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h
>>>> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h
>>>> @@ -665,7 +665,8 @@ static void synchronize_rcu_expedited_wait(void)
>>>>  				mask = leaf_node_cpu_bit(rnp, cpu);
>>>>  				if (!(READ_ONCE(rnp->expmask) & mask))
>>>>  					continue;
>>>> -				dump_cpu_task(cpu);
>>>> +				if (!trigger_single_cpu_backtrace(cpu))
>>>> +					dump_cpu_task(cpu);
>>>
>>> But why not just leave this unchanged, rather than adding the call to
>>> trigger_single_cpu_backtrace() in this patch and then removing it in
>>> the next patch?
>>
>> To make the patch clear and easy to describe. Otherwise, I need to
>> give an additional description of it in the next patch, because I
>> searched all dump_cpu_task(). This seems to make the next patch
>> less simple.
>>
>> Some of the patch sets I've seen have been done step by step like
>> this. But I can't find it now.
>>
>> On the other hand, this patch is a small fix. Earlier versions may
>> only backport it, not the next cleanup patch.
> 
> You do have the option of doing a Cc to stable to control the backporting,
> if that is a potential issue for you.
> 
> On the commit log, just say that the one use case already avoided doing
> the trigger_single_cpu_backtrace(), and thus did not need to be updated.
> 
> So please resend the series, but without the undo/redo.  There would
> thus be two patches rather than three, but there are plenty of other
> things that need fixing anyway.

OK, thanks.

> 
> 							Thanx, Paul
> 
>>>>  			}
>>>>  		}
>>>>  		jiffies_stall = 3 * rcu_exp_jiffies_till_stall_check() + 3;
>>>> -- 
>>>> 2.25.1
>>>>
>>> .
>>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Regards,
>>   Zhen Lei
> .
> 

-- 
Regards,
  Zhen Lei