| Message ID | 57610368.7080905@huawei.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On 2016/6/15 23:49, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 03:27:36PM +0800, Ding Tianhong wrote: >> I met this problem when using the Testgine to send package to ixgbevf nic >> by this steps: >> 1. Connect to ixgbevf, and set the speed to 10Gb/s, it could work fine. >> 2. Then use ifconfig to down the nic and up again, loop for several times. >> 3. The system panic by soft lockup. > > Good catch, queued for review and testing. But what .config was your > kernel built with? > I use the redhat7.1 defconfig to build my kernel, and the RCU config is this: 120 # 121 # RCU Subsystem 122 # 123 CONFIG_TREE_RCU=y 124 # CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU is not set 125 CONFIG_RCU_STALL_COMMON=y 126 CONFIG_CONTEXT_TRACKING=y 127 CONFIG_RCU_USER_QS=y 128 # CONFIG_CONTEXT_TRACKING_FORCE is not set 129 CONFIG_RCU_FANOUT=64 130 CONFIG_RCU_FANOUT_LEAF=16 131 # CONFIG_RCU_FANOUT_EXACT is not set 132 # CONFIG_RCU_FAST_NO_HZ is not set 133 # CONFIG_TREE_RCU_TRACE is not set 134 CONFIG_RCU_NOCB_CPU=y 135 CONFIG_RCU_NOCB_CPU_ALL=y 136 CONFIG_BUILD_BIN2C=y > Also, I did tweak both the commit log and the patch. Your cond_resched() > would prevent soft lockups, but not RCU stalls, so I substituted > cond_resched_rcu_qs(). Please let me know if either of those changes > causes problems at your end. Looks fine to me, I will apply this to my branch and test it, thanks. Ding > > Thanx, Paul > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > commit c317cf19b34c0d2787b787c38bd2c8fe433215da > Author: Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@huawei.com> > Date: Wed Jun 15 15:27:36 2016 +0800 > > rcu: Fix soft lockup for rcu_nocb_kthread > > Carrying out the following steps results in a softlockup in the > RCU callback-offload (rcuo) kthreads: > > 1. Connect to ixgbevf, and set the speed to 10Gb/s. > 2. Use ifconfig to bring the nic up and down repeatedly. > > [ 317.005148] IPv6: ADDRCONF(NETDEV_CHANGE): eth2: link becomes ready > [ 368.106005] BUG: soft lockup - CPU#1 stuck for 22s! [rcuos/1:15] > [ 368.106005] Hardware name: Bochs Bochs, BIOS Bochs 01/01/2011 > [ 368.106005] task: ffff88057dd8a220 ti: ffff88057dd9c000 task.ti: ffff88057dd9c000 > [ 368.106005] RIP: 0010:[<ffffffff81579e04>] [<ffffffff81579e04>] fib_table_lookup+0x14/0x390 > [ 368.106005] RSP: 0018:ffff88061fc83ce8 EFLAGS: 00000286 > [ 368.106005] RAX: 0000000000000001 RBX: 00000000020155c0 RCX: 0000000000000001 > [ 368.106005] RDX: ffff88061fc83d50 RSI: ffff88061fc83d70 RDI: ffff880036d11a00 > [ 368.106005] RBP: ffff88061fc83d08 R08: 0000000000000001 R09: 0000000000000000 > [ 368.106005] R10: ffff880036d11a00 R11: ffffffff819e0900 R12: ffff88061fc83c58 > [ 368.106005] R13: ffffffff816154dd R14: ffff88061fc83d08 R15: 00000000020155c0 > [ 368.106005] FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff88061fc80000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 > [ 368.106005] CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 > [ 368.106005] CR2: 00007f8c2aee9c40 CR3: 000000057b222000 CR4: 00000000000407e0 > [ 368.106005] DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000 > [ 368.106005] DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000ffff0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400 > [ 368.106005] Stack: > [ 368.106005] 00000000010000c0 ffff88057b766000 ffff8802e380b000 ffff88057af03e00 > [ 368.106005] ffff88061fc83dc0 ffffffff815349a6 ffff88061fc83d40 ffffffff814ee146 > [ 368.106005] ffff8802e380af00 00000000e380af00 ffffffff819e0900 020155c0010000c0 > [ 368.106005] Call Trace: > [ 368.106005] <IRQ> > [ 368.106005] > [ 368.106005] [<ffffffff815349a6>] ip_route_input_noref+0x516/0xbd0 > [ 368.106005] [<ffffffff814ee146>] ? skb_release_data+0xd6/0x110 > [ 368.106005] [<ffffffff814ee20a>] ? kfree_skb+0x3a/0xa0 > [ 368.106005] [<ffffffff8153698f>] ip_rcv_finish+0x29f/0x350 > [ 368.106005] [<ffffffff81537034>] ip_rcv+0x234/0x380 > [ 368.106005] [<ffffffff814fd656>] __netif_receive_skb_core+0x676/0x870 > [ 368.106005] [<ffffffff814fd868>] __netif_receive_skb+0x18/0x60 > [ 368.106005] [<ffffffff814fe4de>] process_backlog+0xae/0x180 > [ 368.106005] [<ffffffff814fdcb2>] net_rx_action+0x152/0x240 > [ 368.106005] [<ffffffff81077b3f>] __do_softirq+0xef/0x280 > [ 368.106005] [<ffffffff8161619c>] call_softirq+0x1c/0x30 > [ 368.106005] <EOI> > [ 368.106005] > [ 368.106005] [<ffffffff81015d95>] do_softirq+0x65/0xa0 > [ 368.106005] [<ffffffff81077174>] local_bh_enable+0x94/0xa0 > [ 368.106005] [<ffffffff81114922>] rcu_nocb_kthread+0x232/0x370 > [ 368.106005] [<ffffffff81098250>] ? wake_up_bit+0x30/0x30 > [ 368.106005] [<ffffffff811146f0>] ? rcu_start_gp+0x40/0x40 > [ 368.106005] [<ffffffff8109728f>] kthread+0xcf/0xe0 > [ 368.106005] [<ffffffff810971c0>] ? kthread_create_on_node+0x140/0x140 > [ 368.106005] [<ffffffff816147d8>] ret_from_fork+0x58/0x90 > [ 368.106005] [<ffffffff810971c0>] ? kthread_create_on_node+0x140/0x140 > > ==================================cut here============================== > > It turns out that the rcuos callback-offload kthread is busy processing > a very large quantity of RCU callbacks, and it is not reliquishing the > CPU while doing so. This commit therefore adds an cond_resched_rcu_qs() > within the loop to allow other tasks to run. > > Signed-off-by: Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@huawei.com> > [ paulmck: Substituted cond_resched_rcu_qs for cond_resched. ] > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h > index 0082fce402a0..85c5a883c6e3 100644 > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h > @@ -2173,6 +2173,7 @@ static int rcu_nocb_kthread(void *arg) > cl++; > c++; > local_bh_enable(); > + cond_resched_rcu_qs(); > list = next; > } > trace_rcu_batch_end(rdp->rsp->name, c, !!list, 0, 0, 1); > > > . >
On 2016/6/16 22:19, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 02:09:47PM +0800, Ding Tianhong wrote: >> On 2016/6/15 23:49, Paul E. McKenney wrote: >>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 03:27:36PM +0800, Ding Tianhong wrote: >>>> I met this problem when using the Testgine to send package to ixgbevf nic >>>> by this steps: >>>> 1. Connect to ixgbevf, and set the speed to 10Gb/s, it could work fine. >>>> 2. Then use ifconfig to down the nic and up again, loop for several times. >>>> 3. The system panic by soft lockup. >>> >>> Good catch, queued for review and testing. But what .config was your >>> kernel built with? >>> >> >> I use the redhat7.1 defconfig to build my kernel, and the RCU config is this: >> 120 # >> 121 # RCU Subsystem >> 122 # >> 123 CONFIG_TREE_RCU=y >> 124 # CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU is not set >> 125 CONFIG_RCU_STALL_COMMON=y >> 126 CONFIG_CONTEXT_TRACKING=y >> 127 CONFIG_RCU_USER_QS=y >> 128 # CONFIG_CONTEXT_TRACKING_FORCE is not set >> 129 CONFIG_RCU_FANOUT=64 >> 130 CONFIG_RCU_FANOUT_LEAF=16 >> 131 # CONFIG_RCU_FANOUT_EXACT is not set >> 132 # CONFIG_RCU_FAST_NO_HZ is not set >> 133 # CONFIG_TREE_RCU_TRACE is not set >> 134 CONFIG_RCU_NOCB_CPU=y >> 135 CONFIG_RCU_NOCB_CPU_ALL=y >> 136 CONFIG_BUILD_BIN2C=y > > Thank you! You were running with preemption disabled, so your system > would indeed be very susceptible to this problem. > >>> Also, I did tweak both the commit log and the patch. Your cond_resched() >>> would prevent soft lockups, but not RCU stalls, so I substituted >>> cond_resched_rcu_qs(). Please let me know if either of those changes >>> causes problems at your end. >> >> Looks fine to me, I will apply this to my branch and test it, thanks. > > Please let me know how it goes! > > Thanx, Paul > Hi Paul: It has been a long time after applying this patch, and didn't found any problem, I believe this patch is fine, thanks. Ding >> Ding >> >>> >>> Thanx, Paul >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> commit c317cf19b34c0d2787b787c38bd2c8fe433215da >>> Author: Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@huawei.com> >>> Date: Wed Jun 15 15:27:36 2016 +0800 >>> >>> rcu: Fix soft lockup for rcu_nocb_kthread >>> >>> Carrying out the following steps results in a softlockup in the >>> RCU callback-offload (rcuo) kthreads: >>> >>> 1. Connect to ixgbevf, and set the speed to 10Gb/s. >>> 2. Use ifconfig to bring the nic up and down repeatedly. >>> >>> [ 317.005148] IPv6: ADDRCONF(NETDEV_CHANGE): eth2: link becomes ready >>> [ 368.106005] BUG: soft lockup - CPU#1 stuck for 22s! [rcuos/1:15] >>> [ 368.106005] Hardware name: Bochs Bochs, BIOS Bochs 01/01/2011 >>> [ 368.106005] task: ffff88057dd8a220 ti: ffff88057dd9c000 task.ti: ffff88057dd9c000 >>> [ 368.106005] RIP: 0010:[<ffffffff81579e04>] [<ffffffff81579e04>] fib_table_lookup+0x14/0x390 >>> [ 368.106005] RSP: 0018:ffff88061fc83ce8 EFLAGS: 00000286 >>> [ 368.106005] RAX: 0000000000000001 RBX: 00000000020155c0 RCX: 0000000000000001 >>> [ 368.106005] RDX: ffff88061fc83d50 RSI: ffff88061fc83d70 RDI: ffff880036d11a00 >>> [ 368.106005] RBP: ffff88061fc83d08 R08: 0000000000000001 R09: 0000000000000000 >>> [ 368.106005] R10: ffff880036d11a00 R11: ffffffff819e0900 R12: ffff88061fc83c58 >>> [ 368.106005] R13: ffffffff816154dd R14: ffff88061fc83d08 R15: 00000000020155c0 >>> [ 368.106005] FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff88061fc80000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 >>> [ 368.106005] CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 >>> [ 368.106005] CR2: 00007f8c2aee9c40 CR3: 000000057b222000 CR4: 00000000000407e0 >>> [ 368.106005] DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000 >>> [ 368.106005] DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000ffff0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400 >>> [ 368.106005] Stack: >>> [ 368.106005] 00000000010000c0 ffff88057b766000 ffff8802e380b000 ffff88057af03e00 >>> [ 368.106005] ffff88061fc83dc0 ffffffff815349a6 ffff88061fc83d40 ffffffff814ee146 >>> [ 368.106005] ffff8802e380af00 00000000e380af00 ffffffff819e0900 020155c0010000c0 >>> [ 368.106005] Call Trace: >>> [ 368.106005] <IRQ> >>> [ 368.106005] >>> [ 368.106005] [<ffffffff815349a6>] ip_route_input_noref+0x516/0xbd0 >>> [ 368.106005] [<ffffffff814ee146>] ? skb_release_data+0xd6/0x110 >>> [ 368.106005] [<ffffffff814ee20a>] ? kfree_skb+0x3a/0xa0 >>> [ 368.106005] [<ffffffff8153698f>] ip_rcv_finish+0x29f/0x350 >>> [ 368.106005] [<ffffffff81537034>] ip_rcv+0x234/0x380 >>> [ 368.106005] [<ffffffff814fd656>] __netif_receive_skb_core+0x676/0x870 >>> [ 368.106005] [<ffffffff814fd868>] __netif_receive_skb+0x18/0x60 >>> [ 368.106005] [<ffffffff814fe4de>] process_backlog+0xae/0x180 >>> [ 368.106005] [<ffffffff814fdcb2>] net_rx_action+0x152/0x240 >>> [ 368.106005] [<ffffffff81077b3f>] __do_softirq+0xef/0x280 >>> [ 368.106005] [<ffffffff8161619c>] call_softirq+0x1c/0x30 >>> [ 368.106005] <EOI> >>> [ 368.106005] >>> [ 368.106005] [<ffffffff81015d95>] do_softirq+0x65/0xa0 >>> [ 368.106005] [<ffffffff81077174>] local_bh_enable+0x94/0xa0 >>> [ 368.106005] [<ffffffff81114922>] rcu_nocb_kthread+0x232/0x370 >>> [ 368.106005] [<ffffffff81098250>] ? wake_up_bit+0x30/0x30 >>> [ 368.106005] [<ffffffff811146f0>] ? rcu_start_gp+0x40/0x40 >>> [ 368.106005] [<ffffffff8109728f>] kthread+0xcf/0xe0 >>> [ 368.106005] [<ffffffff810971c0>] ? kthread_create_on_node+0x140/0x140 >>> [ 368.106005] [<ffffffff816147d8>] ret_from_fork+0x58/0x90 >>> [ 368.106005] [<ffffffff810971c0>] ? kthread_create_on_node+0x140/0x140 >>> >>> ==================================cut here============================== >>> >>> It turns out that the rcuos callback-offload kthread is busy processing >>> a very large quantity of RCU callbacks, and it is not reliquishing the >>> CPU while doing so. This commit therefore adds an cond_resched_rcu_qs() >>> within the loop to allow other tasks to run. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@huawei.com> >>> [ paulmck: Substituted cond_resched_rcu_qs for cond_resched. ] >>> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> >>> >>> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h >>> index 0082fce402a0..85c5a883c6e3 100644 >>> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h >>> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h >>> @@ -2173,6 +2173,7 @@ static int rcu_nocb_kthread(void *arg) >>> cl++; >>> c++; >>> local_bh_enable(); >>> + cond_resched_rcu_qs(); >>> list = next; >>> } >>> trace_rcu_batch_end(rdp->rsp->name, c, !!list, 0, 0, 1); >>> >>> >>> . >>> >> >> > > > . >
On 2016/8/10 9:59, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 09:13:14AM +0800, Ding Tianhong wrote: >> On 2016/6/16 22:19, Paul E. McKenney wrote: >>> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 02:09:47PM +0800, Ding Tianhong wrote: >>>> On 2016/6/15 23:49, Paul E. McKenney wrote: >>>>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 03:27:36PM +0800, Ding Tianhong wrote: >>>>>> I met this problem when using the Testgine to send package to ixgbevf nic >>>>>> by this steps: >>>>>> 1. Connect to ixgbevf, and set the speed to 10Gb/s, it could work fine. >>>>>> 2. Then use ifconfig to down the nic and up again, loop for several times. >>>>>> 3. The system panic by soft lockup. >>>>> >>>>> Good catch, queued for review and testing. But what .config was your >>>>> kernel built with? >>>>> >>>> >>>> I use the redhat7.1 defconfig to build my kernel, and the RCU config is this: >>>> 120 # >>>> 121 # RCU Subsystem >>>> 122 # >>>> 123 CONFIG_TREE_RCU=y >>>> 124 # CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU is not set >>>> 125 CONFIG_RCU_STALL_COMMON=y >>>> 126 CONFIG_CONTEXT_TRACKING=y >>>> 127 CONFIG_RCU_USER_QS=y >>>> 128 # CONFIG_CONTEXT_TRACKING_FORCE is not set >>>> 129 CONFIG_RCU_FANOUT=64 >>>> 130 CONFIG_RCU_FANOUT_LEAF=16 >>>> 131 # CONFIG_RCU_FANOUT_EXACT is not set >>>> 132 # CONFIG_RCU_FAST_NO_HZ is not set >>>> 133 # CONFIG_TREE_RCU_TRACE is not set >>>> 134 CONFIG_RCU_NOCB_CPU=y >>>> 135 CONFIG_RCU_NOCB_CPU_ALL=y >>>> 136 CONFIG_BUILD_BIN2C=y >>> >>> Thank you! You were running with preemption disabled, so your system >>> would indeed be very susceptible to this problem. >>> >>>>> Also, I did tweak both the commit log and the patch. Your cond_resched() >>>>> would prevent soft lockups, but not RCU stalls, so I substituted >>>>> cond_resched_rcu_qs(). Please let me know if either of those changes >>>>> causes problems at your end. >>>> >>>> Looks fine to me, I will apply this to my branch and test it, thanks. >>> >>> Please let me know how it goes! >>> >>> Thanx, Paul >>> >> >> Hi Paul: >> >> It has been a long time after applying this patch, and didn't found any problem, I believe this patch is fine, thanks. > > Very good! I will push this one upstream during the next merge window. > > Thanx, Paul > Hi Paul: Sorry to say that I have found this patch will introduce an OOM problem, it will be triggered by huge IP abnormal packet arrived, it looks that avoid process any pending softirqs in the rcuos kthread is the best way to fix this problem, I will send a new patch to revert this and fix the problem. Thanks. Ding >> Ding >> >>>> Ding >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanx, Paul >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> >>>>> commit c317cf19b34c0d2787b787c38bd2c8fe433215da >>>>> Author: Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@huawei.com> >>>>> Date: Wed Jun 15 15:27:36 2016 +0800 >>>>> >>>>> rcu: Fix soft lockup for rcu_nocb_kthread >>>>> >>>>> Carrying out the following steps results in a softlockup in the >>>>> RCU callback-offload (rcuo) kthreads: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Connect to ixgbevf, and set the speed to 10Gb/s. >>>>> 2. Use ifconfig to bring the nic up and down repeatedly. >>>>> >>>>> [ 317.005148] IPv6: ADDRCONF(NETDEV_CHANGE): eth2: link becomes ready >>>>> [ 368.106005] BUG: soft lockup - CPU#1 stuck for 22s! [rcuos/1:15] >>>>> [ 368.106005] Hardware name: Bochs Bochs, BIOS Bochs 01/01/2011 >>>>> [ 368.106005] task: ffff88057dd8a220 ti: ffff88057dd9c000 task.ti: ffff88057dd9c000 >>>>> [ 368.106005] RIP: 0010:[<ffffffff81579e04>] [<ffffffff81579e04>] fib_table_lookup+0x14/0x390 >>>>> [ 368.106005] RSP: 0018:ffff88061fc83ce8 EFLAGS: 00000286 >>>>> [ 368.106005] RAX: 0000000000000001 RBX: 00000000020155c0 RCX: 0000000000000001 >>>>> [ 368.106005] RDX: ffff88061fc83d50 RSI: ffff88061fc83d70 RDI: ffff880036d11a00 >>>>> [ 368.106005] RBP: ffff88061fc83d08 R08: 0000000000000001 R09: 0000000000000000 >>>>> [ 368.106005] R10: ffff880036d11a00 R11: ffffffff819e0900 R12: ffff88061fc83c58 >>>>> [ 368.106005] R13: ffffffff816154dd R14: ffff88061fc83d08 R15: 00000000020155c0 >>>>> [ 368.106005] FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff88061fc80000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 >>>>> [ 368.106005] CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 >>>>> [ 368.106005] CR2: 00007f8c2aee9c40 CR3: 000000057b222000 CR4: 00000000000407e0 >>>>> [ 368.106005] DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000 >>>>> [ 368.106005] DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000ffff0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400 >>>>> [ 368.106005] Stack: >>>>> [ 368.106005] 00000000010000c0 ffff88057b766000 ffff8802e380b000 ffff88057af03e00 >>>>> [ 368.106005] ffff88061fc83dc0 ffffffff815349a6 ffff88061fc83d40 ffffffff814ee146 >>>>> [ 368.106005] ffff8802e380af00 00000000e380af00 ffffffff819e0900 020155c0010000c0 >>>>> [ 368.106005] Call Trace: >>>>> [ 368.106005] <IRQ> >>>>> [ 368.106005] >>>>> [ 368.106005] [<ffffffff815349a6>] ip_route_input_noref+0x516/0xbd0 >>>>> [ 368.106005] [<ffffffff814ee146>] ? skb_release_data+0xd6/0x110 >>>>> [ 368.106005] [<ffffffff814ee20a>] ? kfree_skb+0x3a/0xa0 >>>>> [ 368.106005] [<ffffffff8153698f>] ip_rcv_finish+0x29f/0x350 >>>>> [ 368.106005] [<ffffffff81537034>] ip_rcv+0x234/0x380 >>>>> [ 368.106005] [<ffffffff814fd656>] __netif_receive_skb_core+0x676/0x870 >>>>> [ 368.106005] [<ffffffff814fd868>] __netif_receive_skb+0x18/0x60 >>>>> [ 368.106005] [<ffffffff814fe4de>] process_backlog+0xae/0x180 >>>>> [ 368.106005] [<ffffffff814fdcb2>] net_rx_action+0x152/0x240 >>>>> [ 368.106005] [<ffffffff81077b3f>] __do_softirq+0xef/0x280 >>>>> [ 368.106005] [<ffffffff8161619c>] call_softirq+0x1c/0x30 >>>>> [ 368.106005] <EOI> >>>>> [ 368.106005] >>>>> [ 368.106005] [<ffffffff81015d95>] do_softirq+0x65/0xa0 >>>>> [ 368.106005] [<ffffffff81077174>] local_bh_enable+0x94/0xa0 >>>>> [ 368.106005] [<ffffffff81114922>] rcu_nocb_kthread+0x232/0x370 >>>>> [ 368.106005] [<ffffffff81098250>] ? wake_up_bit+0x30/0x30 >>>>> [ 368.106005] [<ffffffff811146f0>] ? rcu_start_gp+0x40/0x40 >>>>> [ 368.106005] [<ffffffff8109728f>] kthread+0xcf/0xe0 >>>>> [ 368.106005] [<ffffffff810971c0>] ? kthread_create_on_node+0x140/0x140 >>>>> [ 368.106005] [<ffffffff816147d8>] ret_from_fork+0x58/0x90 >>>>> [ 368.106005] [<ffffffff810971c0>] ? kthread_create_on_node+0x140/0x140 >>>>> >>>>> ==================================cut here============================== >>>>> >>>>> It turns out that the rcuos callback-offload kthread is busy processing >>>>> a very large quantity of RCU callbacks, and it is not reliquishing the >>>>> CPU while doing so. This commit therefore adds an cond_resched_rcu_qs() >>>>> within the loop to allow other tasks to run. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@huawei.com> >>>>> [ paulmck: Substituted cond_resched_rcu_qs for cond_resched. ] >>>>> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h >>>>> index 0082fce402a0..85c5a883c6e3 100644 >>>>> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h >>>>> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h >>>>> @@ -2173,6 +2173,7 @@ static int rcu_nocb_kthread(void *arg) >>>>> cl++; >>>>> c++; >>>>> local_bh_enable(); >>>>> + cond_resched_rcu_qs(); >>>>> list = next; >>>>> } >>>>> trace_rcu_batch_end(rdp->rsp->name, c, !!list, 0, 0, 1); >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> . >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> . >>> >> >> > > > . >
On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 08:37:28PM +0800, Ding Tianhong wrote: > > > On 2016/8/10 9:59, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 09:13:14AM +0800, Ding Tianhong wrote: > >> On 2016/6/16 22:19, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > >>> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 02:09:47PM +0800, Ding Tianhong wrote: > >>>> On 2016/6/15 23:49, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > >>>>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 03:27:36PM +0800, Ding Tianhong wrote: > >>>>>> I met this problem when using the Testgine to send package to ixgbevf nic > >>>>>> by this steps: > >>>>>> 1. Connect to ixgbevf, and set the speed to 10Gb/s, it could work fine. > >>>>>> 2. Then use ifconfig to down the nic and up again, loop for several times. > >>>>>> 3. The system panic by soft lockup. > >>>>> > >>>>> Good catch, queued for review and testing. But what .config was your > >>>>> kernel built with? > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> I use the redhat7.1 defconfig to build my kernel, and the RCU config is this: > >>>> 120 # > >>>> 121 # RCU Subsystem > >>>> 122 # > >>>> 123 CONFIG_TREE_RCU=y > >>>> 124 # CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU is not set > >>>> 125 CONFIG_RCU_STALL_COMMON=y > >>>> 126 CONFIG_CONTEXT_TRACKING=y > >>>> 127 CONFIG_RCU_USER_QS=y > >>>> 128 # CONFIG_CONTEXT_TRACKING_FORCE is not set > >>>> 129 CONFIG_RCU_FANOUT=64 > >>>> 130 CONFIG_RCU_FANOUT_LEAF=16 > >>>> 131 # CONFIG_RCU_FANOUT_EXACT is not set > >>>> 132 # CONFIG_RCU_FAST_NO_HZ is not set > >>>> 133 # CONFIG_TREE_RCU_TRACE is not set > >>>> 134 CONFIG_RCU_NOCB_CPU=y > >>>> 135 CONFIG_RCU_NOCB_CPU_ALL=y > >>>> 136 CONFIG_BUILD_BIN2C=y > >>> > >>> Thank you! You were running with preemption disabled, so your system > >>> would indeed be very susceptible to this problem. > >>> > >>>>> Also, I did tweak both the commit log and the patch. Your cond_resched() > >>>>> would prevent soft lockups, but not RCU stalls, so I substituted > >>>>> cond_resched_rcu_qs(). Please let me know if either of those changes > >>>>> causes problems at your end. > >>>> > >>>> Looks fine to me, I will apply this to my branch and test it, thanks. > >>> > >>> Please let me know how it goes! > >>> > >>> Thanx, Paul > >>> > >> > >> Hi Paul: > >> > >> It has been a long time after applying this patch, and didn't found any problem, I believe this patch is fine, thanks. > > > > Very good! I will push this one upstream during the next merge window. > > > > Thanx, Paul > > > > Hi Paul: > > Sorry to say that I have found this patch will introduce an OOM problem, it will be triggered by huge IP abnormal packet > arrived, it looks that avoid process any pending softirqs in the rcuos kthread is the best way to fix this problem, I will > send a new patch to revert this and fix the problem. Interesting... Could you please let me know exactly how the added cond_resched_rcu_qs() leads to an OOM? Is it that the softirqs prevent the grace-period kthread from making progress? Thanx, Paul
On 2016/11/18 20:56, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 08:37:28PM +0800, Ding Tianhong wrote: >> >> >> On 2016/8/10 9:59, Paul E. McKenney wrote: >>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 09:13:14AM +0800, Ding Tianhong wrote: >>>> On 2016/6/16 22:19, Paul E. McKenney wrote: >>>>> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 02:09:47PM +0800, Ding Tianhong wrote: >>>>>> On 2016/6/15 23:49, Paul E. McKenney wrote: >>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 03:27:36PM +0800, Ding Tianhong wrote: >>>>>>>> I met this problem when using the Testgine to send package to ixgbevf nic >>>>>>>> by this steps: >>>>>>>> 1. Connect to ixgbevf, and set the speed to 10Gb/s, it could work fine. >>>>>>>> 2. Then use ifconfig to down the nic and up again, loop for several times. >>>>>>>> 3. The system panic by soft lockup. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Good catch, queued for review and testing. But what .config was your >>>>>>> kernel built with? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I use the redhat7.1 defconfig to build my kernel, and the RCU config is this: >>>>>> 120 # >>>>>> 121 # RCU Subsystem >>>>>> 122 # >>>>>> 123 CONFIG_TREE_RCU=y >>>>>> 124 # CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU is not set >>>>>> 125 CONFIG_RCU_STALL_COMMON=y >>>>>> 126 CONFIG_CONTEXT_TRACKING=y >>>>>> 127 CONFIG_RCU_USER_QS=y >>>>>> 128 # CONFIG_CONTEXT_TRACKING_FORCE is not set >>>>>> 129 CONFIG_RCU_FANOUT=64 >>>>>> 130 CONFIG_RCU_FANOUT_LEAF=16 >>>>>> 131 # CONFIG_RCU_FANOUT_EXACT is not set >>>>>> 132 # CONFIG_RCU_FAST_NO_HZ is not set >>>>>> 133 # CONFIG_TREE_RCU_TRACE is not set >>>>>> 134 CONFIG_RCU_NOCB_CPU=y >>>>>> 135 CONFIG_RCU_NOCB_CPU_ALL=y >>>>>> 136 CONFIG_BUILD_BIN2C=y >>>>> >>>>> Thank you! You were running with preemption disabled, so your system >>>>> would indeed be very susceptible to this problem. >>>>> >>>>>>> Also, I did tweak both the commit log and the patch. Your cond_resched() >>>>>>> would prevent soft lockups, but not RCU stalls, so I substituted >>>>>>> cond_resched_rcu_qs(). Please let me know if either of those changes >>>>>>> causes problems at your end. >>>>>> >>>>>> Looks fine to me, I will apply this to my branch and test it, thanks. >>>>> >>>>> Please let me know how it goes! >>>>> >>>>> Thanx, Paul >>>>> >>>> >>>> Hi Paul: >>>> >>>> It has been a long time after applying this patch, and didn't found any problem, I believe this patch is fine, thanks. >>> >>> Very good! I will push this one upstream during the next merge window. >>> >>> Thanx, Paul >>> >> >> Hi Paul: >> >> Sorry to say that I have found this patch will introduce an OOM problem, it will be triggered by huge IP abnormal packet >> arrived, it looks that avoid process any pending softirqs in the rcuos kthread is the best way to fix this problem, I will >> send a new patch to revert this and fix the problem. > > Interesting... > > Could you please let me know exactly how the added cond_resched_rcu_qs() > leads to an OOM? Is it that the softirqs prevent the grace-period kthread > from making progress? > Ok, reply and discuss on other patch, thanks. Ding > Thanx, Paul > > > . >
==================================cut here============================== Then I check the rcuos thread rcu_nocb_kthread, it will invokes callbacks queued by the corresponding no-CBs cpu, in the loops, it will disable the local irq and enable again, in the local_bh_enable() it will call do_softirq() to deal the package in the recv queue, it looks takes long time, so add cont_sched to feed the watchdog to fix the problem. Signed-off-by: Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@huawei.com> --- kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h index ff1cd4e..1bc729a 100644 --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h @@ -2262,6 +2262,7 @@ static int rcu_nocb_kthread(void *arg) cl++; c++; local_bh_enable(); + cond_resched(); list = next; } trace_rcu_batch_end(rdp->rsp->name, c, !!list, 0, 0, 1);