Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1396324

Re: rcu_preempt self-detected stall on CPU from 4.5-rc3, since 3.17

Show all headers | View raw

On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 04:25:16PM +1000, Ross Green wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 6:18 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 08:42:55AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 07:55:47AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 06:49:08AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >> > > On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 05:28:14PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >> > > > On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 05:25:18PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >> > > > > On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 06:08:41AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >> > > > > > On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 08:25:47AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >> > > > > > > On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 02:06:41PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > [ . . . ]
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > OK, so I should instrument migration_call() if I get the repro rate up?
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Can do, maybe try the below first. (yes I know how long it all takes :/)
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > OK, will run this today, then run calibration for last night's run this
> >> > > > > > evening.
> >> > >
> >> > > And of 18 two-hour runs, there were five failures, or about 28%.
> >> > > That said, I don't have even one significant digit on the failure rate,
> >> > > as 5 of 18 is within the 95% confidence limits for a failure probability
> >> > > as low as 12.5% and as high as 47%.
> >> >
> >> > And after last night's run, this is narrowed down to between 23% and 38%,
> >> > which is close enough.  Average is 30%, 18 failures in 60 runs.
> >> >
> >> > Next step is to test Peter's patch some more.  Might take a couple of
> >> > night's worth of runs to get statistical significance.  After which
> >> > it will be time to rebase to 4.6-rc1.
> >>
> >> And the first night was not so good: 6 failures out of 24 runs.  Adding
> >> this to the 1-of-10 earlier gets 7 failures of 34.  Here are how things
> >> stack up given the range of base failure estimates:
> >>
> >> Low 95% bound of 23%:         84% confidence.
> >>
> >> Actual measurement of 30%:    92% confidence.
> >>
> >> High 95% bound of 38%:                98% confidence.
> >>
> >> So there is still some chance that Peter's patch is helping.  I will
> >> run for one more evening, after which it will be time to move forward
> >> to 4.6-rc1.
> >
> > And no luck reducing bounds.  However, moving to 4.6-rc1 did get some
> > of the trace_printk() to print.  The ftrace_dump()s resulted in RCU
> > CPU stall warnings, and the dumps were truncated due to test timeouts
> > in my scripting.  (I need to make my scripts more patient when they
> > see an ftrace dump in progress, I guess.)
> >
> > Here are the results:
> >
> > http://www2.rdrop.com/users/paulmck/submission/TREE03.console.log.tgz
> > http://www2.rdrop.com/users/paulmck/submission/TREE03.1.console.log.tgz
> > http://www2.rdrop.com/users/paulmck/submission/TREE03.2.console.log.tgz
> > http://www2.rdrop.com/users/paulmck/submission/TREE03.3.console.log.tgz
> > http://www2.rdrop.com/users/paulmck/submission/TREE03.4.console.log.tgz
> > http://www2.rdrop.com/users/paulmck/submission/TREE03.5.console.log.tgz
> > http://www2.rdrop.com/users/paulmck/submission/TREE03.6.console.log.tgz
> > http://www2.rdrop.com/users/paulmck/submission/TREE03.7.console.log.tgz
> > http://www2.rdrop.com/users/paulmck/submission/TREE03.8.console.log.tgz
> > http://www2.rdrop.com/users/paulmck/submission/TREE03.9.console.log.tgz
> > http://www2.rdrop.com/users/paulmck/submission/TREE03.11.console.log.tgz
> > http://www2.rdrop.com/users/paulmck/submission/TREE03.12.console.log.tgz
> > http://www2.rdrop.com/users/paulmck/submission/TREE03.13.console.log.tgz
> > http://www2.rdrop.com/users/paulmck/submission/TREE03.14.console.log.tgz
> > http://www2.rdrop.com/users/paulmck/submission/TREE03.15.console.log.tgz
> > http://www2.rdrop.com/users/paulmck/submission/TREE03.16.console.log.tgz
> > http://www2.rdrop.com/users/paulmck/submission/TREE03.17.console.log.tgz
> > http://www2.rdrop.com/users/paulmck/submission/TREE03.18.console.log.tgz
> > http://www2.rdrop.com/users/paulmck/submission/TREE03.19.console.log.tgz
> > http://www2.rdrop.com/users/paulmck/submission/TREE03.20.console.log.tgz
> > http://www2.rdrop.com/users/paulmck/submission/TREE03.21.console.log.tgz
> > http://www2.rdrop.com/users/paulmck/submission/TREE03.22.console.log.tgz
> > http://www2.rdrop.com/users/paulmck/submission/TREE03.23.console.log.tgz
> > http://www2.rdrop.com/users/paulmck/submission/TREE03.24.console.log.tgz
> >
> > The config is here:
> >
> > http://www2.rdrop.com/users/paulmck/submission/config.tgz
> >
> > More runs to measure 4.6-rc1 base error rate...
> >
> >                                                         Thanx, Paul
> >
> G'day Paul,
> 
> 
> Thought i would update a few runs with the linux-4.6-rc kernels.
> 
> I have attached log outputs through dmesg showing rcu_preempt stall warnings.
> 
> 
> Thought it might be interesting for someone else to look at.
> 
> Currently running linux-4.6-rc6 in testing.

Thank you for sending these, I will look them over!

Still working to reproduce this quickly enough to do real debug...  :-/

							Thanx, Paul

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: rcu_preempt self-detected stall on CPU from 4.5-rc3, since 3.17 "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2016-05-07 17:30 +0200
  Re: rcu_preempt self-detected stall on CPU from 4.5-rc3, since 3.17 Ross Green <rgkernel@gmail.com> - 2016-05-10 04:40 +0200

csiph-web