On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 10:14:57PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 06:48:35AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 04:37:25PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 04:03:22PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 10:14:55AM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> > > > > Paul,
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 07:51:10AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 03:47:28PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> > > > > > > Greetings,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I got the below dmesg and the first bad commit is
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > commit 911af505ef407c2511106c224dd640f882f0f590
> > > > > > > Author: Paul E. McKenney <paul.mcken...@linaro.org>
> > > > > > > Date: Mon Feb 11 10:23:27 2013 -0800
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > rcu: Provide compile-time control for no-CBs CPUs
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Currently, the only way to specify no-CBs CPUs is via the
> > > > > > > rcu_nocbs
> > > > > > > kernel command-line parameter. This is inconvenient in some
> > > > > > > cases,
> > > > > > > particularly for randconfig testing, so this commit adds a
> > > > > > > new set of
> > > > > > > kernel configuration parameters. CONFIG_RCU_NOCB_CPU_NONE
> > > > > > > (the default)
> > > > > > > retains the old behavior, CONFIG_RCU_NOCB_CPU_ZERO offloads
> > > > > > > callback
> > > > > > > processing from CPU 0 (along with any other CPUs specified by
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > rcu_nocbs boot-time parameter), and CONFIG_RCU_NOCB_CPU_ALL
> > > > > > > offloads
> > > > > > > callback processing from all CPUs.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paul.mcken...@linaro.org>
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > However I guess it's a wrong bisect, the commit should be
> > > > > > > unmasking an
> > > > > > > old bug because it merely provides more kconfig options.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This warning happened only once in 74 boots of the kernel.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I also attached the 2nd dmesg which shows boot hang for the same
> > > > > > > kernel.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Note that there are also 2 kernel hangs in the 74 boots. It
> > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > not be an RCU problem, however for completeness, I also attach a
> > > > > > > dmesg
> > > > > > > for your reference when considering this RCU warning.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Either way, that is a nasty warning! You get this on recent
> > > > > > kernels as
> > > > > > well, I take it?
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, the warning is still in recent kernels, indicated from the last
> > > > > lines of the bisect log.
> > > > >
> > > > > 911af505ef407c2511106c224dd640f882f0f590 is bad and its parent
> > > > > 34ed62461ae4970695974afb9a60ac3df0086830 is good:
> > > > > > > git bisect bad 911af505ef407c2511106c224dd640f882f0f590 # 65
> > > > > > > 2013-06-07 16:14:41 rcu: Provide compile-time control for
> > > > > > > no-CBs CPUs
> > > > > > > git bisect good 34ed62461ae4970695974afb9a60ac3df0086830 # 900
> > > > > > > 2013-06-08 04:57:34 rcu: Remove restrictions on no-CBs CPUs
> > > > >
> > > > > After bisect, the script tries to confirm that
> > > > > 34ed62461ae4970695974afb9a60ac3df0086830 is really good by boot
> > > > > testing it 2700 more times:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > git bisect good 34ed62461ae4970695974afb9a60ac3df0086830 # 2700
> > > > > > > 2013-06-10 14:33:56 rcu: Remove restrictions on no-CBs CPUs
> > > > >
> > > > > And continue to find out whether the linus/master and
> > > > > linux-next/master are good/bad (here the results are both bad):
> > > > >
> > > > > > > git bisect bad f43e7a34255a387930bc2bb826ec17c052ce975e # 14:34
> > > > > > > 0 Merge branch 'for-next'
> > > > > > > git bisect bad c04efed734409f5a44715b54a6ca1b54b0ccf215 # 14:41
> > > > > > > 11 Add linux-next specific files for 20130607
> > > >
> > > > Just to let you know that I am putting some time into this...
> > > >
> > > > Well, I got a panic, but it turned out to be the kernel being unable to
> > > > locate init. Why your .config should have this effect, I have no idea
> > > > --
> > > > I don't see any Kconfig parameters that look to me like they should be
> > > > specifying where init lives. Any hints?
>
> I run randconfig kernels and a smallish ubuntu-core initrd as rootfs.
> This must be rare setup and may well trigger weird problems. ;)
>
> > > > Left to myself, my next step will be to try just the RCU-related Kconfig
> > > > parameters.
> > >
> > > Which gets rid of the "unable to locate init" panic. One strange thing
> > > in your .config:
> > >
> > > CONFIG_HZ_PERIODIC=y
> > > # CONFIG_NO_HZ_IDLE is not set
> > > # CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL is not set
> > > CONFIG_NO_HZ=y
> > >
> > > Seems harmless, though.
> > >
> > > I will do repeated runs with this config fragment to see if I can
> > > reproduce
> > > your warning:
> > >
> > > CONFIG_TREE_PREEMPT_RCU=y
> > > CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU=y
> > > CONFIG_RCU_STALL_COMMON=y
> > > CONFIG_RCU_USER_QS=n
> > > CONFIG_RCU_FANOUT=64
> > > CONFIG_RCU_FANOUT_LEAF=16
> > > CONFIG_RCU_FANOUT_EXACT=n
> > > CONFIG_RCU_BOOST=y
> > > CONFIG_RCU_BOOST_PRIO=1
> > > CONFIG_RCU_BOOST_DELAY=500
> > > CONFIG_RCU_NOCB_CPU=y
> > > CONFIG_RCU_NOCB_CPU_NONE=n
> > > CONFIG_RCU_NOCB_CPU_ZERO=y
> > > CONFIG_RCU_NOCB_CPU_ALL=n
> > > CONFIG_DEBUG_OBJECTS_RCU_HEAD=n
> > > CONFIG_SPARSE_RCU_POINTER=n
> > > CONFIG_RCU_TORTURE_TEST=y
> > > CONFIG_RCU_TORTURE_TEST_RUNNABLE=y
> > > CONFIG_RCU_CPU_STALL_TIMEOUT=21
> > > CONFIG_RCU_CPU_STALL_VERBOSE=y
> > > CONFIG_RCU_CPU_STALL_INFO=y
> > > CONFIG_RCU_TRACE=n
> > > CONFIG_NR_CPUS=8
> > > CONFIG_HZ_PERIODIC=y
> > > CONFIG_NO_HZ_IDLE=n
> > > CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL=n
> > > CONFIG_NO_HZ=y
> > > CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE=n
> > > CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY=n
> > > CONFIG_PREEMPT=y
> > > CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT=y
> >
> > And my system completed 200 boots with two minutes of rcutorture without
> > failure. Any thoughts on what I should try next?
>
> Thanks for looking into this and testing it out!
> I just kicked off a new bisect and hope to collect more information
> about it.
Hmmmm... Are you somehow managing to deliver a signal to the rcuo
kthread? I don't believe that this is possible, but it would explain what
you are seeing. Another equally improbable possibility would be that
timing gets confused enough to make it appear that MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT
time has elapsed, though given that schedule_timeout() has a special case
for MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT, it would need to be rather insanely confused.
Any additional confusion I can add? ;-)
Thanx, Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
