On Tuesday, August 02, 2016 09:03:10 AM Gary Jennejohn wrote: > On Mon, 01 Aug 2016 13:19:16 -0700 > John Baldwin <jhb_at_freebsd.org> wrote: > > > On Monday, August 01, 2016 03:31:11 PM Gary Jennejohn wrote: > > > On Mon, 1 Aug 2016 09:34:34 +0200 > > > Gary Jennejohn <gljennjohn_at_gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 14:22:35 -0700 > > > > John Baldwin <jhb_at_freebsd.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, July 31, 2016 11:29:14 AM Gary Jennejohn wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, 30 Jul 2016 12:03:59 -0700 > > > > > > John Baldwin <jhb_at_freebsd.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, July 30, 2016 09:44:22 AM Gary Jennejohn wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, 29 Jul 2016 13:17:42 -0700 > > > > > > > > John Baldwin <jhb_at_freebsd.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, July 28, 2016 12:31:31 AM Gary Jennejohn wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Well, now I know that ULE is a prerequiste for EARLY_AP_STARTUP! I > > > > > > > > > > wasn't aware of that. I prefer BSD and that's the scheduler I did > > > > > > > > > > the first tests with. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But with the ULE scheduler the system comes up all the way. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It would be nice if the BSD scheduler could also be modified to > > > > > > > > > > work with EARLY_AP_STARTUP. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I wasn't able to reproduce your hang with 4BSD, but I think I see a > > > > > > > > > possible problem. Try this: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/sys/kern/sched_4bsd.c b/sys/kern/sched_4bsd.c > > > > > > > > > index 7de56b6..d53331a 100644 > > > > > > > > > --- a/sys/kern/sched_4bsd.c > > > > > > > > > +++ b/sys/kern/sched_4bsd.c > > > > > > > > > _at__at_ -327,7 +327,6 _at__at_ maybe_preempt(struct thread *td) > > > > > > > > > * - The current thread has a higher (numerically lower) or > > > > > > > > > * equivalent priority. Note that this prevents curthread from > > > > > > > > > * trying to preempt to itself. > > > > > > > > > - * - It is too early in the boot for context switches (cold is set). > > > > > > > > > * - The current thread has an inhibitor set or is in the process of > > > > > > > > > * exiting. In this case, the current thread is about to switch > > > > > > > > > * out anyways, so there's no point in preempting. If we did, > > > > > > > > > _at__at_ -348,7 +347,7 _at__at_ maybe_preempt(struct thread *td) > > > > > > > > > ("maybe_preempt: trying to run inhibited thread")); > > > > > > > > > pri = td->td_priority; > > > > > > > > > cpri = ctd->td_priority; > > > > > > > > > - if (panicstr != NULL || pri >= cpri || cold /* || dumping */ || > > > > > > > > > + if (panicstr != NULL || pri >= cpri /* || dumping */ || > > > > > > > > > TD_IS_INHIBITED(ctd)) > > > > > > > > > return (0); > > > > > > > > > #ifndef FULL_PREEMPTION > > > > > > > > > _at__at_ -1127,7 +1126,7 _at__at_ forward_wakeup(int cpunum) > > > > > > > > > if ((!forward_wakeup_enabled) || > > > > > > > > > (forward_wakeup_use_mask == 0 && forward_wakeup_use_loop == 0)) > > > > > > > > > return (0); > > > > > > > > > - if (!smp_started || cold || panicstr) > > > > > > > > > + if (!smp_started || panicstr) > > > > > > > > > return (0); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > forward_wakeups_requested++; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, but with this patch the kernel hangs in exactly the same > > > > > > > > place as before - after the HPET output. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe I'm missing some kernel option which ULE works around, or > > > > > > > > something like that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hmm, ok. Please add KTR_RUNQ and KTR_SMP to the KTR masks, that is > > > > > > > 'options KTR_COMPILE=(KTR_PROC|KTR_RUNQ|KTR_SMP)' and > > > > > > > 'options KTR_MASK=(KTR_PROC|KTR_RUNQ|KTR_SMP)' > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please also add this patch (on top of the previous patch): > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/sys/kern/sched_4bsd.c b/sys/kern/sched_4bsd.c > > > > > > > index 2973a23..bab2278 100644 > > > > > > > --- a/sys/kern/sched_4bsd.c > > > > > > > +++ b/sys/kern/sched_4bsd.c > > > > > > > _at__at_ -1278,6 +1278,8 _at__at_ sched_add(struct thread *td, int flags) > > > > > > > KASSERT(td->td_flags & TDF_INMEM, > > > > > > > ("sched_add: thread swapped out")); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + CTR2(KTR_PROC, "sched_add: thread %d (%s)", td->td_tid, > > > > > > > + sched_tdname(td)); > > > > > > > KTR_STATE2(KTR_SCHED, "thread", sched_tdname(td), "runq add", > > > > > > > "prio:%d", td->td_priority, KTR_ATTR_LINKED, > > > > > > > sched_tdname(curthread)); > > > > > > > diff --git a/sys/x86/x86/cpu_machdep.c b/sys/x86/x86/cpu_machdep.c > > > > > > > index f07b97e..1f418f1 100644 > > > > > > > --- a/sys/x86/x86/cpu_machdep.c > > > > > > > +++ b/sys/x86/x86/cpu_machdep.c > > > > > > > _at__at_ -440,6 +440,7 _at__at_ cpu_idle_wakeup(int cpu) > > > > > > > return (0); > > > > > > > if (*state == STATE_MWAIT) > > > > > > > *state = STATE_RUNNING; > > > > > > > + CTR1(KTR_PROC, "cpu_idle_wakeup: wokeup CPU %d", cpu); > > > > > > > return (1); > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (I haven't tried compiling it, you might have to add the sys/ktr.h > > > > > > > header to cpu_machdep.c if it doesn't build.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hopefully we will get some better trace messages before it hangs > > > > > > > with this added info. The root issue seems to be that 4BSD is > > > > > > > pinning thread0 to some other CPU (due to sched_bind that happens > > > > > > > inside of bus_bind_intr() when the HPET driver pins IRQs to CPUs) > > > > > > > and that other CPU isn't waking up to realize it needs to run thread0. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It compiled with no changes needed. > > > > > > > > > > > > Even though I set MAXCPU to a mere 2, the boot still hadn't > > > > > > completed after 90 minutes and I broke it off. I still have > > > > > > the kernel, so I can try it another time when I have less need > > > > > > for my FreeBSD box. > > > > > > > > > > Did you have the KTR options enabled from before? I don't expect this > > > > > to fix the issue, this is more about getting better debug info when it > > > > > hangs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, all the options from before were enabled. Maybe I should have > > > > disabled KTR_VERBOSE=1? I'll try it without that. > > > > > > > > > > KTR_VERBOSE=1 is necessary. > > > > Yes. > > > > > OK, after about 5 hours it landed in an infinite loop emitting: > > > > > > cpu_0 ipi_cpu: cpu: 1 to 5 ipi: 2 (my CPU has 6 cores) > > > > Humm, can you capture a picture right when it hangs? Those interrupts > > are due to clock interrupts (IPI_HARDCLOCK) and are noise. More what > > I'm trying to see is if we send IPI_AST/IPI_PREEMPT to the CPU after > > binding to it. > > > > I can't tell when it hangs due to the amount of trace coming out. > The hang is hidden in the noise and I have no way to suppress the > trace that I'm aware of. The trace is coming so fast that even > a photo of the screen looks smeared. > > Is there a way to limit the trace to IPI_AST/IPI_PREEMPT? Yes: diff --git a/sys/x86/x86/mp_x86.c b/sys/x86/x86/mp_x86.c index 91c119a..6c57b20 100644 --- a/sys/x86/x86/mp_x86.c +++ b/sys/x86/x86/mp_x86.c _at__at_ -1160,7 +1160,8 _at__at_ ipi_cpu(int cpu, u_int ipi) if (ipi == IPI_STOP_HARD) CPU_SET_ATOMIC(cpu, &ipi_stop_nmi_pending); - CTR3(KTR_SMP, "%s: cpu: %d ipi: %x", __func__, cpu, ipi); + if (ipi == IPI_AST || ipi == IPI_PREEMPT) + CTR3(KTR_SMP, "%s: cpu: %d ipi: %x", __func__, cpu, ipi); ipi_send_cpu(cpu, ipi); } -- John BaldwinReceived on Tue Aug 02 2016 - 15:41:28 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:41:07 UTC