Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1544454
| From | Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH] spinlock_debug: report spinlock lockup from unlock |
| Date | 2016-12-19 12:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sQ3PH-6CU-19@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <sPq1X-3wy-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <sQ3mF-6t5-29@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
Hello, On (12/19/16 11:20), Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 01:19:11AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > > There is a race window between the point when __spin_lock_debug() > > detects spinlock lockup and the time when CPU that caused the > > lockup receives its backtrace interrupt. > > > > Before __spin_lock_debug() triggers all_cpu_backtrace() it calls > > spin_dump() to printk() the current state of the lock and CPU > > backtrace. These printk() calls can take some time to print the > > messages to serial console, for instance (we are not talking > > about console_unlock() loop and a flood of messages from other > > CPUs, but just spin_dump() printk() and serial console). > > > > All those preparation steps can give CPU that caused the lockup > > enough time to run away, so when it receives a backtrace interrupt > > it can look completely innocent. > > > > The patch extends `struct raw_spinlock' with additional variable > > that stores jiffies of successful do_raw_spin_lock() and checks > > in debug_spin_unlock() whether the spin_lock has been locked for > > too long. So we will have a reliable backtrace from CPU that > > locked up and a reliable backtrace from CPU that caused the > > lockup. > > But why? my setups printk() to a slow serial console; so spin_dump() from locked up CPU spends enough time on printing to render all-CPU-backtrace useless: a CPU that caused the lockup may be in user space or somewhere else by the time locked-up CPU finally asks it to IPI/NMI backtrace. CPU1 CPU2 spin_lock(&lock) spin_lock(&lock) spin_dump() printk() printk() spin_unlock(&lock) printk() ... trigger_all_cpu_backtrace() send out IPI/NMI -> backtrace IPI/NMI. may be irrelevant at this point. which complicates analysis, when spinlock can be taken from multiple paths. the amount of time spent in spin_dump() also depends on the dump_stack() - the deeper the call stack is the more time we give to CPU that cause the lock up. > Also, why jiffies, that's a horrible source of time. well, __spin_lock_debug() sort of depends on jiffies: `loops_per_jiffy * HZ', so I also used jiffies. can use something better. like actual time (?) lock() lock->acquired = running_clock() >> 30LL unlock() (running_clock() >> 30LL) - lock->acquired >= 1 -ss
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[RFC][PATCH] spinlock_debug: report spinlock lockup from unlock Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com> - 2016-12-17 17:30 +0100
Re: [RFC][PATCH] spinlock_debug: report spinlock lockup from unlock Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-12-19 11:30 +0100
Re: [RFC][PATCH] spinlock_debug: report spinlock lockup from unlock Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com> - 2016-12-19 12:00 +0100
csiph-web