Message-ID: <5072A0BF.2060306@parallels.com>
Date:	Mon, 8 Oct 2012 13:45:35 +0400
From:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
To:	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
CC:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<cgroups@...r.kernel.org>, <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	<devel@...nvz.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	<linux-mm@...ck.org>, "Suleiman Souhlal" <suleiman@...gle.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	"Mel Gorman" <mgorman@...e.de>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 12/13] execute the whole memcg freeing in rcu callback

On 10/05/2012 07:31 PM, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 02:53:13PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote:
>> On 10/01/2012 05:27 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> On Tue 18-09-12 18:04:09, Glauber Costa wrote:
>>>> A lot of the initialization we do in mem_cgroup_create() is done with softirqs
>>>> enabled. This include grabbing a css id, which holds &ss->id_lock->rlock, and
>>>> the per-zone trees, which holds rtpz->lock->rlock. All of those signal to the
>>>> lockdep mechanism that those locks can be used in SOFTIRQ-ON-W context. This
>>>> means that the freeing of memcg structure must happen in a compatible context,
>>>> otherwise we'll get a deadlock.
>>>
>>> Maybe I am missing something obvious but why cannot we simply disble
>>> (soft)irqs in mem_cgroup_create rather than make the free path much more
>>> complicated. It really feels strange to defer everything (e.g. soft
>>> reclaim tree cleanup which should be a no-op at the time because there
>>> shouldn't be any user pages in the group).
>>>
>>
>> Ok.
>>
>> I was just able to come back to this today - I was mostly working on the
>> slab feedback over the past few days. I will answer yours and Tejun's
>> concerns at once:
>>
>> Here is the situation: the backtrace I get is this one:
>>
>> [  124.956725] =================================
>> [  124.957217] [ INFO: inconsistent lock state ]
>> [  124.957217] 3.5.0+ #99 Not tainted
>> [  124.957217] ---------------------------------
>> [  124.957217] inconsistent {SOFTIRQ-ON-W} -> {IN-SOFTIRQ-W} usage.
>> [  124.957217] ksoftirqd/0/3 [HC0[0]:SC1[1]:HE1:SE0] takes:
>> [  124.957217]  (&(&ss->id_lock)->rlock){+.?...}, at:
>> [<ffffffff810aa7b2>] spin_lock+0x9/0xb
>> [  124.957217] {SOFTIRQ-ON-W} state was registered at:
>> [  124.957217]   [<ffffffff810996ed>] __lock_acquire+0x31f/0xd68
>> [  124.957217]   [<ffffffff8109a660>] lock_acquire+0x108/0x15c
>> [  124.957217]   [<ffffffff81534ec4>] _raw_spin_lock+0x40/0x4f
>> [  124.957217]   [<ffffffff810aa7b2>] spin_lock+0x9/0xb
>> [  124.957217]   [<ffffffff810ad00e>] get_new_cssid+0x69/0xf3
>> [  124.957217]   [<ffffffff810ad0da>] cgroup_init_idr+0x42/0x60
>> [  124.957217]   [<ffffffff81b20e04>] cgroup_init+0x50/0x100
>> [  124.957217]   [<ffffffff81b05b9b>] start_kernel+0x3b9/0x3ee
>> [  124.957217]   [<ffffffff81b052d6>] x86_64_start_reservations+0xb1/0xb5
>> [  124.957217]   [<ffffffff81b053d8>] x86_64_start_kernel+0xfe/0x10b
>>
>>
>> So what we learn from it, is: we are acquiring a specific lock (the css
>> id one) from softirq context. It was previously taken in a
>> softirq-enabled context, that seems to be coming directly from
>> get_new_cssid.
>>
>> Tejun correctly pointed out that we should never acquire that lock from
>> a softirq context, in which he is right.
>>
>> But the situation changes slightly with kmem. Now, the following excerpt
>> of a backtrace is possible:
>>
>> [   48.602775]  [<ffffffff81103095>] free_accounted_pages+0x47/0x4c
>> [   48.602775]  [<ffffffff81047f90>] free_task+0x31/0x5c
>> [   48.602775]  [<ffffffff8104807d>] __put_task_struct+0xc2/0xdb
>> [   48.602775]  [<ffffffff8104dfc7>] put_task_struct+0x1e/0x22
>> [   48.602775]  [<ffffffff8104e144>] delayed_put_task_struct+0x7a/0x98
>> [   48.602775]  [<ffffffff810cf0e5>] __rcu_process_callbacks+0x269/0x3df
>> [   48.602775]  [<ffffffff810cf28c>] rcu_process_callbacks+0x31/0x5b
>> [   48.602775]  [<ffffffff8105266d>] __do_softirq+0x122/0x277
>>
>> So as you can see, free_accounted_pages (that will trigger a memcg_put()
>> -> mem_cgroup_free()) can now be called from softirq context, which is,
>> an rcu callback (and I just realized I wrote the exact opposite in the
>> subj line: man, I really suck at that!!)
>> As a matter of fact, we could not move to our rcu callback as well:
>>
>> we need to move it to a worker thread with the rest.
>>
>> We already have a worker thread: he reason we have it is not
>> static_branches: The reason is vfree(), that will BUG_ON(in_interrupt())
>> and could not be called from rcu callback as well. We moved static
>> branches in there as well for a similar problem, but haven't introduced it.
>>
>> Could we move just part of it to the worker thread? Absolutely yes.
>> Moving just free_css_id() is enough to make it work. But since it is not
>> the first context related problem we had, I thought: "to hell with that,
>> let's move everything and be safe".
>>
>> I am fine moving free_css_id() only if you would prefer.
>>
>> Can we disable softirqs when we initialize css_id? Maybe. My machine
>> seems to boot fine and survive the simple workload that would trigger
>> that bug if I use irqsave spinlocks instead of normal spinlocks. But
>> this has to be done from cgroup core: We have no control over css
>> creation in memcg.
>>
>> How would you guys like me to handle this ?
> 
> Without the vfree callback, I would have preferred just making the
> id_lock softirq safe.  But since we have to defer (parts of) freeing
> anyway, I like your approach of just deferring the rest as well
> better.
> 
> But please add comments why the stuff in there is actually deferred.
> Just simple notes like:
> 
> "this can be called from atomic contexts, <examples>",
> 
> "vfree must run from process context" and "css_id locking is not soft
> irq safe",
> 
> "to hell with that, let's just do everything from the workqueue and be
> safe and simple".
> 
> (And this may be personal preference, but why have free_work call
> __mem_cgroup_free()?  Does anyone else need to call that code?  There
> are too many layers already, why not just keep it all in free_work()
> and have one less stack frame on your mind? :))
> 
It is used when create fails.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists