From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>

If a CSD-lock stall goes on long enough, it will cause an RCU CPU
stall warning.  This additional warning provides much additional
console-log traffic and little additional information.  Therefore,
provide a new csd_lock_is_stuck() function that returns true if there
is an ongoing CSD-lock stall.  This function will be used by the RCU
CPU stall warnings to provide a one-line indication of the stall when
this function returns true.

Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
Cc: Imran Khan <imran.f.khan@oracle.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: Leonardo Bras <leobras@redhat.com>
Cc: "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>
Signed-off-by: Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraj.upadhyay@kernel.org>
---
 include/linux/smp.h |  6 ++++++
 kernel/smp.c        | 16 ++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 22 insertions(+)

diff --git a/include/linux/smp.h b/include/linux/smp.h
index fcd61dfe2af3..3871bd32018f 100644
--- a/include/linux/smp.h
+++ b/include/linux/smp.h
@@ -294,4 +294,10 @@ int smpcfd_prepare_cpu(unsigned int cpu);
 int smpcfd_dead_cpu(unsigned int cpu);
 int smpcfd_dying_cpu(unsigned int cpu);
 
+#ifdef CONFIG_CSD_LOCK_WAIT_DEBUG
+bool csd_lock_is_stuck(void);
+#else
+static inline bool csd_lock_is_stuck(void) { return false; }
+#endif
+
 #endif /* __LINUX_SMP_H */
diff --git a/kernel/smp.c b/kernel/smp.c
index 81f7083a53e2..c3e8241e9cbb 100644
--- a/kernel/smp.c
+++ b/kernel/smp.c
@@ -207,6 +207,19 @@ static int csd_lock_wait_getcpu(call_single_data_t *csd)
 	return -1;
 }
 
+static atomic_t n_csd_lock_stuck;
+
+/**
+ * csd_lock_is_stuck - Has a CSD-lock acquisition been stuck too long?
+ *
+ * Returns @true if a CSD-lock acquisition is stuck and has been stuck
+ * long enough for a "non-responsive CSD lock" message to be printed.
+ */
+bool csd_lock_is_stuck(void)
+{
+	return !!atomic_read(&n_csd_lock_stuck);
+}
+
 /*
  * Complain if too much time spent waiting.  Note that only
  * the CSD_TYPE_SYNC/ASYNC types provide the destination CPU,
@@ -228,6 +241,7 @@ static bool csd_lock_wait_toolong(call_single_data_t *csd, u64 ts0, u64 *ts1, in
 		cpu = csd_lock_wait_getcpu(csd);
 		pr_alert("csd: CSD lock (#%d) got unstuck on CPU#%02d, CPU#%02d released the lock.\n",
 			 *bug_id, raw_smp_processor_id(), cpu);
+		atomic_dec(&n_csd_lock_stuck);
 		return true;
 	}
 
@@ -251,6 +265,8 @@ static bool csd_lock_wait_toolong(call_single_data_t *csd, u64 ts0, u64 *ts1, in
 	pr_alert("csd: %s non-responsive CSD lock (#%d) on CPU#%d, waiting %lld ns for CPU#%02d %pS(%ps).\n",
 		 firsttime ? "Detected" : "Continued", *bug_id, raw_smp_processor_id(), (s64)ts_delta,
 		 cpu, csd->func, csd->info);
+	if (firsttime)
+		atomic_dec(&n_csd_lock_stuck);
 	/*
 	 * If the CSD lock is still stuck after 5 minutes, it is unlikely
 	 * to become unstuck. Use a signed comparison to avoid triggering
-- 
2.40.1

On Sat, 2024-07-13 at 22:28 +0530, neeraj.upadhyay@kernel.org wrote:
> 
> @@ -228,6 +241,7 @@ static bool
> csd_lock_wait_toolong(call_single_data_t *csd, u64 ts0, u64 *ts1, in
>  		cpu = csd_lock_wait_getcpu(csd);
>  		pr_alert("csd: CSD lock (#%d) got unstuck on
> CPU#%02d, CPU#%02d released the lock.\n",
>  			 *bug_id, raw_smp_processor_id(), cpu);
> +		atomic_dec(&n_csd_lock_stuck);
>  		return true;
>  	}
>  

So we decrement it when it gets unstuck. Good.

> @@ -251,6 +265,8 @@ static bool
> csd_lock_wait_toolong(call_single_data_t *csd, u64 ts0, u64 *ts1, in
>  	pr_alert("csd: %s non-responsive CSD lock (#%d) on CPU#%d,
> waiting %lld ns for CPU#%02d %pS(%ps).\n",
>  		 firsttime ? "Detected" : "Continued", *bug_id,
> raw_smp_processor_id(), (s64)ts_delta,
>  		 cpu, csd->func, csd->info);
> +	if (firsttime)
> +		atomic_dec(&n_csd_lock_stuck);
> 

However, I don't see any place where it is incremented when things
get stuck, and this line decrements it when a CPU gets stuck for
the first time?

Should this be an atomic_inc?

-- 
All Rights Reversed.

On Sat, Jul 13, 2024 at 01:16:47PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Sat, 2024-07-13 at 22:28 +0530, neeraj.upadhyay@kernel.org wrote:
> > 
> > @@ -228,6 +241,7 @@ static bool
> > csd_lock_wait_toolong(call_single_data_t *csd, u64 ts0, u64 *ts1, in
> >  		cpu = csd_lock_wait_getcpu(csd);
> >  		pr_alert("csd: CSD lock (#%d) got unstuck on
> > CPU#%02d, CPU#%02d released the lock.\n",
> >  			 *bug_id, raw_smp_processor_id(), cpu);
> > +		atomic_dec(&n_csd_lock_stuck);
> >  		return true;
> >  	}
> >  
> 
> So we decrement it when it gets unstuck. Good.
> 
> > @@ -251,6 +265,8 @@ static bool
> > csd_lock_wait_toolong(call_single_data_t *csd, u64 ts0, u64 *ts1, in
> >  	pr_alert("csd: %s non-responsive CSD lock (#%d) on CPU#%d,
> > waiting %lld ns for CPU#%02d %pS(%ps).\n",
> >  		 firsttime ? "Detected" : "Continued", *bug_id,
> > raw_smp_processor_id(), (s64)ts_delta,
> >  		 cpu, csd->func, csd->info);
> > +	if (firsttime)
> > +		atomic_dec(&n_csd_lock_stuck);
> > 
> 
> However, I don't see any place where it is incremented when things
> get stuck, and this line decrements it when a CPU gets stuck for
> the first time?
> 
> Should this be an atomic_inc?

Good catch, thank you!  I will go get that brown paper bag...

							Thanx, Paul