Re: [BUG] Re: Linux 6.4.4

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Sun, Jul 23, 2023 at 10:50:26AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> 
> 
> On 7/22/23 13:27, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> [..]
> > 
> > OK, if this kernel is non-preemptible, you are not running TREE03,
> > correct?
> > 
> >> Next plan of action is to get sched_waking stack traces since I have a
> >> very reliable repro of this now.
> > 
> > Too much fun!  ;-)
> 
> For TREE07 issue, it is actually the schedule_timeout_interruptible(1)
> in stutter_wait() that is beating up the CPU0 for 4 seconds.
> 
> This is very similar to the issue I fixed in New year in d52d3a2bf408
> ("torture: Fix hang during kthread shutdown phase")

Agreed, if there are enough kthreads, and all the kthreads are on a
single CPU, this could consume that CPU.

> Adding a cond_resched() there also did not help.
> 
> I think the issue is the stutter thread fails to move spt forward
> because it does not get CPU time. But spt == 1 should be very brief
> AFAIU. I was wondering if we could set that to RT.

Or just use a single hrtimer-based wait for each kthread?

> But also maybe the following will cure it like it did for the shutdown
> issue, giving the stutter thread just enough CPU time to move spt forward.
> 
> Now I am trying the following and will let it run while I go do other
> family related things. ;)

Good point, if this avoids the problem, that gives a strong indication
that your hypothesis on the root cause is correct.

							Thanx, Paul

> +++ b/kernel/torture.c
> @@ -733,6 +733,6 @@ bool stutter_wait(const char *title)
>                         ret = true;
>                 }
>                 if (spt == 1) {
> -                       schedule_timeout_interruptible(1);
> +                       schedule_timeout_interruptible(HZ / 20);
>                         cond_resched();
>                 } else if (spt == 2) {
>