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

Groups > linux.kernel > #1405090 > unrolled thread

Re: [rcutorture] 8704baab9b: WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 30 at kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c:363 rcu_perf_writer

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [rcutorture] 8704baab9b:  WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 30 at  kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c:363 rcu_perf_writer Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 06:40 +0200
    Re: [rcutorture] 8704baab9b:  WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 30 at  kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c:363 rcu_perf_writer "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2016-05-24 20:10 +0200
      Re: [rcutorture] 8704baab9b:  WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 30 at  kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c:363 rcu_perf_writer Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 02:40 +0200

#1405090 — Re: [rcutorture] 8704baab9b: WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 30 at kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c:363 rcu_perf_writer

On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 08:28:06AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 02:26:49PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > Hi Paul,
> > 
> > On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 10:24:22PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 10:36:00AM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> > > > Greetings,
> > > > 
> > > > 0day kernel testing robot got the below dmesg and the first bad commit is
> > > > 
> > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master
> > > > 
> > > > commit 8704baab9bc848b58c129fed6b591bb84ec02f41
> > > > Author:     Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > > AuthorDate: Thu Dec 31 18:33:22 2015 -0800
> > > > Commit:     Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > > CommitDate: Thu Mar 31 13:37:38 2016 -0700
> > > > 
> > > >     rcutorture: Add RCU grace-period performance tests
> > > >     
> > > >     This commit adds a new rcuperf module that carries out simple performance
> > > >     tests of RCU grace periods.
> > > >     
> > > >     Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > 
> > > ???
> > > 
> > > This commit adds a default-n performance-test module.  I don't believe
> > 
> > I think the robot was using a !SMP && CONFIG_TORTURE_TEST=y &&
> > CONFIG_RCU_PERF_TEST=y configuration ;-)
> > 
> > > that this would result in boot failures.  False bisection?
> > > 
> > 
> > The code triggering the warning is:
> > 
> > 	WARN_ON(rcu_gp_is_normal() && gp_exp);
> > 
> > , so rcu_gp_is_normal() is true because we are using TINY RCU, moreover
> > the default value of gp_exp for *rcuperf* is also true (whereas the one
> > for rcutorture is false). That's why the warnning was triggered.
> > 
> > It happened in the boot progress because rcu_perf_writer threads were
> > created and ran via module init function rcu_perf_init().
> > 
> > Maybe we'd better change the defaut value of gp_exp for rcuperf?
> 
> Or make the default depend on CONFIG_TINY_RCU.  Or downgrade the
> WARN_ON() to soething that results in torture-test failure but does
> not cause 0day to complain.  Or...
> 

So I think a better is we

1.	set the default value to false (to align with rcutorture)

and

2.	downgrade the WARN_ON() to torture-test failures, because those
	are not kernel bugs.

Here is a patch for further discussion:

------------------------->8
Subject: [PATCH] rcuperf: Don't treat gp_exp mis-setting as a kernel warning

0day found a boot warning triggered in rcu_perf_writer() on !SMP kernel:

	WARN_ON(rcu_gp_is_normal() && gp_exp);

, which turned out to be caused by the default value of gp_exp.

However, the reason of the warning is only mis-setting, which should be
handled inside rcuperf module rather than treated as a kernel warning.

Therefore this patch moves the WARN_ON from rcu_perf_writer() and
handles those checkings in rcu_perf_init(), which could also save the
checkings for each writer.

Moreover, this patch changes the default value of gp_exp to 1) align
with rcutorture tests and 2) make the default setting work for all RCU
implementations by default.

Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Fixes: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/57411b10.mFvG0+AgcrMXGtcj%fengguang.wu@intel.com
---
 kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c | 14 +++++++++++---
 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c b/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c
index 3cee0d8393ed..1dc2bd1de4b6 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c
+++ b/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c
@@ -58,7 +58,7 @@ MODULE_AUTHOR("Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>");
 #define VERBOSE_PERFOUT_ERRSTRING(s) \
 	do { if (verbose) pr_alert("%s" PERF_FLAG "!!! %s\n", perf_type, s); } while (0)
 
-torture_param(bool, gp_exp, true, "Use expedited GP wait primitives");
+torture_param(bool, gp_exp, false, "Use expedited GP wait primitives");
 torture_param(int, holdoff, 10, "Holdoff time before test start (s)");
 torture_param(int, nreaders, -1, "Number of RCU reader threads");
 torture_param(int, nwriters, -1, "Number of RCU updater threads");
@@ -363,8 +363,6 @@ rcu_perf_writer(void *arg)
 	u64 *wdpp = writer_durations[me];
 
 	VERBOSE_PERFOUT_STRING("rcu_perf_writer task started");
-	WARN_ON(rcu_gp_is_expedited() && !rcu_gp_is_normal() && !gp_exp);
-	WARN_ON(rcu_gp_is_normal() && gp_exp);
 	WARN_ON(!wdpp);
 	set_cpus_allowed_ptr(current, cpumask_of(me % nr_cpu_ids));
 	sp.sched_priority = 1;
@@ -631,6 +629,16 @@ rcu_perf_init(void)
 		firsterr = -ENOMEM;
 		goto unwind;
 	}
+	if (rcu_gp_is_expedited() && !rcu_gp_is_normal() && !gp_exp) {
+		VERBOSE_PERFOUT_ERRSTRING("try to measure normal grace periods when all the grace periods are expedited");
+		firsterr = -EINVAL;
+		goto unwind;
+	}
+	if (rcu_gp_is_normal() && gp_exp) {
+		VERBOSE_PERFOUT_ERRSTRING("try to measure expedited grace periods when all the expedited ones fall back to the normal ones");
+		firsterr = -EINVAL;
+		goto unwind;
+	}
 	for (i = 0; i < nrealwriters; i++) {
 		writer_durations[i] =
 			kcalloc(MAX_MEAS, sizeof(*writer_durations[i]),
-- 
2.8.2

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1406357

On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 12:35:35PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 08:28:06AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 02:26:49PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > > Hi Paul,
> > > 
> > > On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 10:24:22PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 10:36:00AM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> > > > > Greetings,
> > > > > 
> > > > > 0day kernel testing robot got the below dmesg and the first bad commit is
> > > > > 
> > > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master
> > > > > 
> > > > > commit 8704baab9bc848b58c129fed6b591bb84ec02f41
> > > > > Author:     Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > > > AuthorDate: Thu Dec 31 18:33:22 2015 -0800
> > > > > Commit:     Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > > > CommitDate: Thu Mar 31 13:37:38 2016 -0700
> > > > > 
> > > > >     rcutorture: Add RCU grace-period performance tests
> > > > >     
> > > > >     This commit adds a new rcuperf module that carries out simple performance
> > > > >     tests of RCU grace periods.
> > > > >     
> > > > >     Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > > 
> > > > ???
> > > > 
> > > > This commit adds a default-n performance-test module.  I don't believe
> > > 
> > > I think the robot was using a !SMP && CONFIG_TORTURE_TEST=y &&
> > > CONFIG_RCU_PERF_TEST=y configuration ;-)
> > > 
> > > > that this would result in boot failures.  False bisection?
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > The code triggering the warning is:
> > > 
> > > 	WARN_ON(rcu_gp_is_normal() && gp_exp);
> > > 
> > > , so rcu_gp_is_normal() is true because we are using TINY RCU, moreover
> > > the default value of gp_exp for *rcuperf* is also true (whereas the one
> > > for rcutorture is false). That's why the warnning was triggered.
> > > 
> > > It happened in the boot progress because rcu_perf_writer threads were
> > > created and ran via module init function rcu_perf_init().
> > > 
> > > Maybe we'd better change the defaut value of gp_exp for rcuperf?
> > 
> > Or make the default depend on CONFIG_TINY_RCU.  Or downgrade the
> > WARN_ON() to soething that results in torture-test failure but does
> > not cause 0day to complain.  Or...
> > 
> 
> So I think a better is we
> 
> 1.	set the default value to false (to align with rcutorture)
> 
> and
> 
> 2.	downgrade the WARN_ON() to torture-test failures, because those
> 	are not kernel bugs.
> 
> Here is a patch for further discussion:

This patch looks good to me, given a little editing of the commit log.
(See below for error string suggestion.)

Other thoughts?

							Thanx, Paul

> ------------------------->8
> Subject: [PATCH] rcuperf: Don't treat gp_exp mis-setting as a kernel warning
> 
> 0day found a boot warning triggered in rcu_perf_writer() on !SMP kernel:
> 
> 	WARN_ON(rcu_gp_is_normal() && gp_exp);
> 
> , which turned out to be caused by the default value of gp_exp.
> 
> However, the reason of the warning is only mis-setting, which should be
> handled inside rcuperf module rather than treated as a kernel warning.
> 
> Therefore this patch moves the WARN_ON from rcu_perf_writer() and
> handles those checkings in rcu_perf_init(), which could also save the
> checkings for each writer.
> 
> Moreover, this patch changes the default value of gp_exp to 1) align
> with rcutorture tests and 2) make the default setting work for all RCU
> implementations by default.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
> Fixes: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/57411b10.mFvG0+AgcrMXGtcj%fengguang.wu@intel.com
> ---
>  kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c | 14 +++++++++++---
>  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c b/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c
> index 3cee0d8393ed..1dc2bd1de4b6 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c
> @@ -58,7 +58,7 @@ MODULE_AUTHOR("Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>");
>  #define VERBOSE_PERFOUT_ERRSTRING(s) \
>  	do { if (verbose) pr_alert("%s" PERF_FLAG "!!! %s\n", perf_type, s); } while (0)
> 
> -torture_param(bool, gp_exp, true, "Use expedited GP wait primitives");
> +torture_param(bool, gp_exp, false, "Use expedited GP wait primitives");
>  torture_param(int, holdoff, 10, "Holdoff time before test start (s)");
>  torture_param(int, nreaders, -1, "Number of RCU reader threads");
>  torture_param(int, nwriters, -1, "Number of RCU updater threads");
> @@ -363,8 +363,6 @@ rcu_perf_writer(void *arg)
>  	u64 *wdpp = writer_durations[me];
> 
>  	VERBOSE_PERFOUT_STRING("rcu_perf_writer task started");
> -	WARN_ON(rcu_gp_is_expedited() && !rcu_gp_is_normal() && !gp_exp);
> -	WARN_ON(rcu_gp_is_normal() && gp_exp);
>  	WARN_ON(!wdpp);
>  	set_cpus_allowed_ptr(current, cpumask_of(me % nr_cpu_ids));
>  	sp.sched_priority = 1;
> @@ -631,6 +629,16 @@ rcu_perf_init(void)
>  		firsterr = -ENOMEM;
>  		goto unwind;
>  	}
> +	if (rcu_gp_is_expedited() && !rcu_gp_is_normal() && !gp_exp) {
> +		VERBOSE_PERFOUT_ERRSTRING("try to measure normal grace periods when all the grace periods are expedited");

"All grace periods expedited, no normal ones to measure!"

> +		firsterr = -EINVAL;
> +		goto unwind;
> +	}
> +	if (rcu_gp_is_normal() && gp_exp) {
> +		VERBOSE_PERFOUT_ERRSTRING("try to measure expedited grace periods when all the expedited ones fall back to the normal ones");

"All grace periods normal, no expedited ones to measure!"

> +		firsterr = -EINVAL;
> +		goto unwind;
> +	}
>  	for (i = 0; i < nrealwriters; i++) {
>  		writer_durations[i] =
>  			kcalloc(MAX_MEAS, sizeof(*writer_durations[i]),
> -- 
> 2.8.2
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1406540

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 11:06:52AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 12:35:35PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 08:28:06AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 02:26:49PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > > > Hi Paul,
> > > > 
> > > > On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 10:24:22PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 10:36:00AM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> > > > > > Greetings,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 0day kernel testing robot got the below dmesg and the first bad commit is
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > commit 8704baab9bc848b58c129fed6b591bb84ec02f41
> > > > > > Author:     Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > > > > AuthorDate: Thu Dec 31 18:33:22 2015 -0800
> > > > > > Commit:     Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > > > > CommitDate: Thu Mar 31 13:37:38 2016 -0700
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >     rcutorture: Add RCU grace-period performance tests
> > > > > >     
> > > > > >     This commit adds a new rcuperf module that carries out simple performance
> > > > > >     tests of RCU grace periods.
> > > > > >     
> > > > > >     Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > > > 
> > > > > ???
> > > > > 
> > > > > This commit adds a default-n performance-test module.  I don't believe
> > > > 
> > > > I think the robot was using a !SMP && CONFIG_TORTURE_TEST=y &&
> > > > CONFIG_RCU_PERF_TEST=y configuration ;-)
> > > > 
> > > > > that this would result in boot failures.  False bisection?
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > The code triggering the warning is:
> > > > 
> > > > 	WARN_ON(rcu_gp_is_normal() && gp_exp);
> > > > 
> > > > , so rcu_gp_is_normal() is true because we are using TINY RCU, moreover
> > > > the default value of gp_exp for *rcuperf* is also true (whereas the one
> > > > for rcutorture is false). That's why the warnning was triggered.
> > > > 
> > > > It happened in the boot progress because rcu_perf_writer threads were
> > > > created and ran via module init function rcu_perf_init().
> > > > 
> > > > Maybe we'd better change the defaut value of gp_exp for rcuperf?
> > > 
> > > Or make the default depend on CONFIG_TINY_RCU.  Or downgrade the
> > > WARN_ON() to soething that results in torture-test failure but does
> > > not cause 0day to complain.  Or...
> > > 
> > 
> > So I think a better is we
> > 
> > 1.	set the default value to false (to align with rcutorture)
> > 
> > and
> > 
> > 2.	downgrade the WARN_ON() to torture-test failures, because those
> > 	are not kernel bugs.
> > 
> > Here is a patch for further discussion:
> 
> This patch looks good to me, given a little editing of the commit log.
> (See below for error string suggestion.)
> 

Those are better (shorter and more accurate), thank you! I will send out
a standalone patch with the modification.

Regards,
Boqun

> Other thoughts?
> 
> 							Thanx, Paul
> 
> > ------------------------->8
> > Subject: [PATCH] rcuperf: Don't treat gp_exp mis-setting as a kernel warning
> > 
> > 0day found a boot warning triggered in rcu_perf_writer() on !SMP kernel:
> > 
> > 	WARN_ON(rcu_gp_is_normal() && gp_exp);
> > 
> > , which turned out to be caused by the default value of gp_exp.
> > 
> > However, the reason of the warning is only mis-setting, which should be
> > handled inside rcuperf module rather than treated as a kernel warning.
> > 
> > Therefore this patch moves the WARN_ON from rcu_perf_writer() and
> > handles those checkings in rcu_perf_init(), which could also save the
> > checkings for each writer.
> > 
> > Moreover, this patch changes the default value of gp_exp to 1) align
> > with rcutorture tests and 2) make the default setting work for all RCU
> > implementations by default.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
> > Fixes: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/57411b10.mFvG0+AgcrMXGtcj%fengguang.wu@intel.com
> > ---
> >  kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c | 14 +++++++++++---
> >  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c b/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c
> > index 3cee0d8393ed..1dc2bd1de4b6 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c
> > +++ b/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c
> > @@ -58,7 +58,7 @@ MODULE_AUTHOR("Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>");
> >  #define VERBOSE_PERFOUT_ERRSTRING(s) \
> >  	do { if (verbose) pr_alert("%s" PERF_FLAG "!!! %s\n", perf_type, s); } while (0)
> > 
> > -torture_param(bool, gp_exp, true, "Use expedited GP wait primitives");
> > +torture_param(bool, gp_exp, false, "Use expedited GP wait primitives");
> >  torture_param(int, holdoff, 10, "Holdoff time before test start (s)");
> >  torture_param(int, nreaders, -1, "Number of RCU reader threads");
> >  torture_param(int, nwriters, -1, "Number of RCU updater threads");
> > @@ -363,8 +363,6 @@ rcu_perf_writer(void *arg)
> >  	u64 *wdpp = writer_durations[me];
> > 
> >  	VERBOSE_PERFOUT_STRING("rcu_perf_writer task started");
> > -	WARN_ON(rcu_gp_is_expedited() && !rcu_gp_is_normal() && !gp_exp);
> > -	WARN_ON(rcu_gp_is_normal() && gp_exp);
> >  	WARN_ON(!wdpp);
> >  	set_cpus_allowed_ptr(current, cpumask_of(me % nr_cpu_ids));
> >  	sp.sched_priority = 1;
> > @@ -631,6 +629,16 @@ rcu_perf_init(void)
> >  		firsterr = -ENOMEM;
> >  		goto unwind;
> >  	}
> > +	if (rcu_gp_is_expedited() && !rcu_gp_is_normal() && !gp_exp) {
> > +		VERBOSE_PERFOUT_ERRSTRING("try to measure normal grace periods when all the grace periods are expedited");
> 
> "All grace periods expedited, no normal ones to measure!"
> 
> > +		firsterr = -EINVAL;
> > +		goto unwind;
> > +	}
> > +	if (rcu_gp_is_normal() && gp_exp) {
> > +		VERBOSE_PERFOUT_ERRSTRING("try to measure expedited grace periods when all the expedited ones fall back to the normal ones");
> 
> "All grace periods normal, no expedited ones to measure!"
> 
> > +		firsterr = -EINVAL;
> > +		goto unwind;
> > +	}
> >  	for (i = 0; i < nrealwriters; i++) {
> >  		writer_durations[i] =
> >  			kcalloc(MAX_MEAS, sizeof(*writer_durations[i]),
> > -- 
> > 2.8.2
> > 
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web