Re: [PATCH 00/30] PREEMPT_AUTO: support lazy rescheduling

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 04:45:17PM -0800, Ankur Arora wrote:
> 
> Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
> > On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 01:24:59PM -0800, Ankur Arora wrote:
> >>
> >> Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >>
> >> > On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 07:45:18PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 06:03:28PM -0800, Ankur Arora wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 09:55:24PM -0800, Ankur Arora wrote:
> >> >> > >> Hi,
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >> This series adds a new scheduling model PREEMPT_AUTO, which like
> >> >> > >> PREEMPT_DYNAMIC allows dynamic switching between a none/voluntary/full
> >> >> > >> preemption model. However, unlike PREEMPT_DYNAMIC, it doesn't depend
> >> >> > >> on explicit preemption points for the voluntary models.
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >> The series is based on Thomas' original proposal which he outlined
> >> >> > >> in [1], [2] and in his PoC [3].
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >> An earlier RFC version is at [4].
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > This uncovered a couple of latent bugs in RCU due to its having been
> >> >> > > a good long time since anyone built a !SMP preemptible kernel with
> >> >> > > non-preemptible RCU.  I have a couple of fixes queued on -rcu [1], most
> >> >> > > likely for the merge window after next, but let me know if you need
> >> >> > > them sooner.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Thanks. As you can probably tell, I skipped out on !SMP in my testing.
> >> >> > But, the attached diff should tide me over until the fixes are in.
> >> >>
> >> >> That was indeed my guess.  ;-)
> >> >>
> >> >> > > I am also seeing OOM conditions during rcutorture testing of callback
> >> >> > > flooding, but I am still looking into this.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > That's on the PREEMPT_AUTO && PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY configuration?
> >> >>
> >> >> On two of the PREEMPT_AUTO && PREEMPT_NONE configurations, but only on
> >> >> two of them thus far.  I am running a longer test to see if this might
> >> >> be just luck.  If not, I look to see what rcutorture scenarios TREE10
> >> >> and TRACE01 have in common.
> >> >
> >> > And still TRACE01 and TREE10 are hitting OOMs, still not seeing what
> >> > sets them apart.  I also hit a grace-period hang in TREE04, which does
> >> > CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY=y along with CONFIG_PREEMPT_AUTO=y.  Something
> >> > to dig into more.
> >>
> >> So, the only PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY=y configuration is TREE04. I wonder
> >> if you would continue to hit the TREE04 hang with CONFIG_PREEMTP_NONE=y
> >> as well?
> >> (Just in the interest of minimizing configurations.)
> >
> > I would be happy to, but in the spirit of full disclosure...
> >
> > First, I have seen that failure only once, which is not enough to
> > conclude that it has much to do with TREE04.  It might simply be low
> > probability, so that TREE04 simply was unlucky enough to hit it first.
> > In contrast, I have sufficient data to be reasonably confident that the
> > callback-flooding OOMs really do have something to do with the TRACE01 and
> > TREE10 scenarios, even though I am not yet seeing what these two scenarios
> > have in common that they don't also have in common with other scenarios.
> > But what is life without a bit of mystery?  ;-)
> 
> :).
> 
> > Second, please see the attached tarball, which contains .csv files showing
> > Kconfig options and kernel boot parameters for the various torture tests.
> > The portions of the filenames preceding the "config.csv" correspond to
> > the directories in tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/configs.
> 
> So, at least some of the HZ_FULL=y tests don't run into problems.
> 
> > Third, there are additional scenarios hand-crafted by the script at
> > tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/bin/torture.sh.  Thus far, none of
> > them have triggered, other than via the newly increased difficulty
> > of configurating a tracing-free kernel with which to test, but they
> > can still be useful in ruling out particular Kconfig options or kernel
> > boot parameters being related to a given issue.
> >
> > But please do take a look at the .csv files and let me know what
> > adjustments would be appropriate given the failure information.
> 
> Nothing stands out just yet. Let me start a run here and see if
> that gives me some ideas.

Sounds good, thank you!

> I'm guessing the splats don't give any useful information or
> you would have attached them ;).

My plan is to extract what can be extracted from the overnight run
that I just started.  Just in case the fixes have any effect on things,
unlikely though that might be given those fixes and the runs that failed.

> Thanks for testing, btw.

The sooner we find them, the sooner they get fixed.  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul