On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 06:26:59PM +0100, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 08:51:01AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 04:42:58PM +0100, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 06:51:44AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 02:27:51PM +0100, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 11:34:03AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > > On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 06:48:40PM +0100, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 09:36:07AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 06:21:30PM +0100, Uladzislau Rezki
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 07:45:23AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 12:41:38PM +0100, Uladzislau Rezki
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 12:29:45PM -0800, Paul E.
> > > > > > > > > > > McKenney wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 07:58:26PM +0100, Uladzislau
> > > > > > > > > > > > Rezki (Sony) wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > This configuration specifies the maximum number of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > CPUs which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is set to 8. The problem is that it can not be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > overwritten for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > something higher.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Remove that configuration for TREE05, so it is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > possible to run
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the torture test on as many CPUs as many system has.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > <ure...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > You should be able to override this on the kvm.sh
> > > > > > > > > > > > command line by
> > > > > > > > > > > > specifying "--kconfig CONFIG_NR_CPUS=128" or whatever
> > > > > > > > > > > > number you wish.
> > > > > > > > > > > > For example, see the torture.sh querying the system's
> > > > > > > > > > > > number of CPUs
> > > > > > > > > > > > and then specifying it to a number of tests.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Or am I missing something here?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > It took me a while to understand what happens. Apparently
> > > > > > > > > > > there is this
> > > > > > > > > > > 8 CPUs limitation. Yes, i can do it manually by passing
> > > > > > > > > > > --kconfig but
> > > > > > > > > > > you need to know about that. I have not expected that.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Therefore i removed it from the configuration because i
> > > > > > > > > > > have not found
> > > > > > > > > > > a good explanation why we need. It is confusing instead :)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Right now, if I do a run with --configs "TREE10 14*CFLIST",
> > > > > > > > > > this will
> > > > > > > > > > make use of 20 systems with 80 CPUs each. If you remove
> > > > > > > > > > that line from
> > > > > > > > > > TREE05, won't each instance of TREE05 consume a full
> > > > > > > > > > system, for a total
> > > > > > > > > > of 33 systems? Yes, I could use "--kconfig
> > > > > > > > > > CONFIG_NR_CPUS=8" on the
> > > > > > > > > > command line, but that would affect all the scenarios, not
> > > > > > > > > > just TREE05.
> > > > > > > > > > Including (say) TINY01, where I believe that it would cause
> > > > > > > > > > kvm.sh
> > > > > > > > > > to complain about a Kconfig conflict.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hence me not being in favor of this change. ;-)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Is there another way to make things work for both
> > > > > > > > > > situations?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > OK, i see. Well. I will just go with --kconfig
> > > > > > > > > CONFIG_NR_CPUS=foo if i
> > > > > > > > > need more CPUs for TREE05.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I will not resist, we just drop this patch :)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thank you!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The bug you are chasing happens when a given synchonize_rcu()
> > > > > > > > interacts
> > > > > > > > with RCU readers, correct?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Below one:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > > /*
> > > > > > > * RCU torture fake writer kthread. Repeatedly calls sync, with
> > > > > > > a random
> > > > > > > * delay between calls.
> > > > > > > */
> > > > > > > static int
> > > > > > > rcu_torture_fakewriter(void *arg)
> > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In rcutorture, only the rcu_torture_writer() call to
> > > > > > > > synchronize_rcu()
> > > > > > > > interacts with rcu_torture_reader(). So my guess is that
> > > > > > > > running
> > > > > > > > many small TREE05 guest OSes would reproduce this bug more
> > > > > > > > quickly.
> > > > > > > > So instead of this:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --kconfig CONFIG_NR_CPUS=128
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Do this:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --configs "16*TREE05"
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Or maybe even this:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --configs "16*TREE05" --kconfig CONFIG_NR_CPUS=4
> > > > > > > Thanks for input.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If you mean below splat:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > i.e. with more nfakewriters.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Right, and large nfakewriters would help push the synchronize_rcu()
> > > > > > wakeups off of the grace-period kthread.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > If you mean the one that has recently reported, i am not able to
> > > > > > > reproduce it anyhow :)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Using larger numbers of smaller rcutorture guest OSes might help to
> > > > > > reproduce it. Maybe as small as three CPUs each. ;-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > OK. I will give a try this:
> > > > >
> > > > > for (( i=0; i<$LOOPS; i++ )); do
> > > > > tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/bin/kvm.sh --cpus 5
> > > > > --configs \
> > > > > '16*TREE05' --memory 10G --bootargs 'rcutorture.fwd_progress=1'
> > > > > echo "Done $i"
> > > > > done
> > > >
> > > > Making each guest OS smaller needs "--kconfig CONFIG_NR_CPUS=4" (or
> > > > whatever) as well, perhaps also increasing the "16*TREE05".
> > > >
> > >
> > > By default we have NR_CPUS=8, we we discussed. Providing to kvm "--cpus 5"
> > > parameter will just set number of CPUs for a VM to 5:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > > ...
> > > [ 0.060672] SLUB: HWalign=64, Order=0-3, MinObjects=0, CPUs=5, Nodes=1
> > > ...
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > so, for my test i do not see why i need to set --kconfig CONFIG_NR_CPUS=4.
> > >
> > > Am i missing something? :)
> >
> > Because that gets you more guest OSes running on your system, each with
> > one RCU-update kthread that is being checked by RCU reader kthreads.
> > Therefore, it might double the rate at which you are able to reproduce
> > this issue.
> >
> You mean that setting --kconfig CONFIG_NR_CPUS=4 and 16*TREE05 will run
> 4 separate KVM instances?
Almost but not quite.
I am assuming that you have a system with a multiple of eight CPUs.
If so, and assuming that Cheung's bug is an interaction between a fast
synchronize_rcu() grace period and a reader task that this grace period
is waiting on, having more and smaller guest OSes might make the problem
happen faster. So instead of your:
tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/bin/kvm.sh --cpus 5 --configs \
'16*TREE05' --memory 10G --bootargs 'rcutorture.fwd_progress=1'
You might be able to double the number of reproductions of the bug
per unit time by instead using:
tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/bin/kvm.sh --cpus 5 --configs \
'32*TREE05' --memory 10G --bootargs 'rcutorture.fwd_progress=1' \
--kconfig "CONFIG_NR_CPUS=4"
Does that seem reasonable to you?
Thanx, Paul
