svn commit: r329448 - head/sys/kern

[Peter Holm]

On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 07:47:38PM +0100, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 7:42 PM, Peter Holm <peter at holm.cc> wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 06:34:34PM +0100, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
> > > On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 5:38 PM, Peter Holm <peter at holm.cc> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 06:26:32PM +0200, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 05:07:07PM +0100, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
> > > > > > On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 01:27:38PM +0200, Konstantin Belousov
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 08:48:46AM +0000, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
> > > > > > > > Author: mjg
> > > > > > > > Date: Sat Feb 17 08:48:45 2018
> > > > > > > > New Revision: 329448
> > > > > > > > URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/329448
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Log:
> > > > > > > >   exit: get rid of PROC_SLOCK when checking a process to report
> > > > > > > Was this tested ?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I was trussing multithreaded microbenchmarks, no issues.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > In particular, are you aware of r309539 ?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So it looks like I misread the code - I have grepped
> > > > > > thread_suspend_switch operating with the proc locked and misread
> > > > > > thread_suspend_one's assert as PROC_LOCK_ASSERT.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That said, I think this is harmless. Regardless of the lock the
> > > > > > inspecting thread can race and check "too soon". Even for a case
> > where
> > > > > > it decides to report, I don't see anything which would depend on
> > the
> > > > > > suspending thread to finish.
> > > > > It was definitely not harmless when I tried to avoid the spin lock
> > there,
> > > > > but I do not remember exact failure mode.  Most likely, it was a
> > missed
> > > > > report of the traced child indeed, but I am not sure that truss
> > triggered
> > > > > it.  Most likely, Peter Holm was the reporter, since he is listed in
> > > > > the commit.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I ran a truss(1) test on r329456 and it fails. I have not had a
> > > > chance to look closer at this, but this is what I see:
> > > >
> > > > [root at mercat1 /home/pho]# pgrep truss | xargs ps -Hlp
> > > > UID   PID  PPID CPU PRI NI   VSZ  RSS MWCHAN STAT TT     TIME COMMAND
> > > >   0 41149 41118   0  52  0 11532 2588 wait   I     0  0:01.38 truss
> > > > /tmp/ttruss 10
> > > >   0 41151 41149   0  52  0 13156 2300 -      TX    0  0:00.98
> > /tmp/ttruss
> > > > 10
> > > >   0 41151 41149   0  52  0 13156 2300 -      TX    0  0:00.00
> > /tmp/ttruss
> > > > 10
> > > > [root at mercat1 /home/pho]# procstat -k 41151
> > > >   PID    TID COMM                TDNAME              KSTACK
> > > > 41151 100211 ttruss              -                   mi_switch
> > > > thread_suspend_switch ptracestop amd64_syscall fast_syscall_common
> > > > 41151 100765 ttruss              -                   mi_switch
> > > > thread_suspend_check ast doreti_ast
> > > > [root at mercat1 /home/pho]#
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Ok, I reproduced the bug with your script. I reverted the change.
> > >
> > > The patch I mailed in this thread fixes it for me. Below is a variant
> > > which can be applied on top of fresh head:
> > >
> > > https://people.freebsd.org/~mjg/wait6_slock.diff
> > >
> >
> > Yes, this also works for me with the truss(1) test scenario.
> > Would you like me to run the full set of test?
> >
> >
> If you have free cycles I don't see why not, thanks.
> 

I ran all of the tests in stress2 on amd64.
No problems found.

- Peter