Date:	Thu, 14 Jan 2016 16:27:27 +0200
From:	Nikolay Borisov <kernel@...p.com>
To:	Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org >> Linux Kernel Mailing List" 
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:	linux-s390 <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
	KVM list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: regression 4.4: deadlock in with cgroup percpu_rwsem



On 01/14/2016 04:08 PM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> On 01/14/2016 03:04 PM, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 01/14/2016 01:19 PM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>>> Folks,
>>>
>>> With 4.4 I can easily bring the system into a hang like situation by
>>> putting stress on the cgroup_threadgroup rwsem. (e.g. starting/stopping
>>> kvm guests via libvirt and many vCPUs). Here is my preliminary analysis:
>>>
>>> When the hang happens, the system is idle for all CPUs. There are some
>>> processes waiting for the cgroup_thread_rwsem, e.g.
>>>
>>> crash> bt 87399
>>> PID: 87399  TASK: faef084998        CPU: 59  COMMAND: "systemd-udevd"
>>>  #0 [f9e762fc88] __schedule at 83b2cc
>>>  #1 [f9e762fcf0] schedule at 83ba26
>>>  #2 [f9e762fd08] rwsem_down_read_failed at 83fb64
>>>  #3 [f9e762fd68] percpu_down_read at 1bdf56
>>>  #4 [f9e762fdd0] exit_signals at 1742ae
>>>  #5 [f9e762fe00] do_exit at 163be0
>>>  #6 [f9e762fe60] do_group_exit at 165c62
>>>  #7 [f9e762fe90] __wake_up_parent at 165d00
>>>  #8 [f9e762fea8] system_call at 842386
>>>
>>> of course, any new process would wait for the same lock during fork.
>>>
>>> Looking at the rwsem, while all CPUs are idle, it appears that the lock
>>> is taken for write:
>>>
>>> crash> print /x cgroup_threadgroup_rwsem.rw_sem
>>> $8 = {
>>>   count = 0xfffffffe00000001, 
>>> [..]
>>>   owner = 0xfabf28c998, 
>>> }
>>>
>>> Looking at the owner field:
>>>
>>> crash> bt 0xfabf28c998
>>> PID: 11867  TASK: fabf28c998        CPU: 42  COMMAND: "libvirtd"
>>>  #0 [fadeccb5e8] __schedule at 83b2cc
>>>  #1 [fadeccb650] schedule at 83ba26
>>>  #2 [fadeccb668] schedule_timeout at 8403c6
>>>  #3 [fadeccb748] wait_for_common at 83c850
>>>  #4 [fadeccb7b8] flush_work at 18064a
>>>  #5 [fadeccb8d8] lru_add_drain_all at 2abd10
>>>  #6 [fadeccb938] migrate_prep at 309ed2
>>>  #7 [fadeccb950] do_migrate_pages at 2f7644
>>>  #8 [fadeccb9f0] cpuset_migrate_mm at 220848
>>>  #9 [fadeccba58] cpuset_attach at 223248
>>> #10 [fadeccbaa0] cgroup_taskset_migrate at 21a678
>>> #11 [fadeccbaf8] cgroup_migrate at 21a942
>>> #12 [fadeccbba0] cgroup_attach_task at 21ab8a
>>> #13 [fadeccbc18] __cgroup_procs_write at 21affa
>>> #14 [fadeccbc98] cgroup_file_write at 216be0
>>> #15 [fadeccbd08] kernfs_fop_write at 3aa088
>>> #16 [fadeccbd50] __vfs_write at 319782
>>> #17 [fadeccbe08] vfs_write at 31a1ac
>>> #18 [fadeccbe68] sys_write at 31af06
>>> #19 [fadeccbea8] system_call at 842386
>>>  PSW:  0705100180000000 000003ff9438f9f0 (user space)
>>>
>>> it appears that the write holder scheduled away and waits
>>> for a completion. Now what happens is, that the write lock
>>> holder finally calls flush_work for the lru_add_drain_all
>>> work. 
>>
>> So what's happening is that libvirtd wants to move some processes in the
>> cgroup subtree and it to the respective cgroup file. So
>> cgroup_threadgroup_rwsem is acquired in __cgroup_procs_write, then as
>> part of this process the pages for that process have to be migrated,
>> hence the do_migrate_pages. And this call chain boils down to calling
>> lru_add_drain_cpu on every cpu.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> As far as I can see, this work is now tries to create a new kthread
>>> and waits for that, as the backtrace for the kworker on that cpu has:
>>>
>>> PID: 81913  TASK: fab5356220        CPU: 42  COMMAND: "kworker/42:2"
>>>  #0 [fadd6d7998] __schedule at 83b2cc
>>>  #1 [fadd6d7a00] schedule at 83ba26
>>>  #2 [fadd6d7a18] schedule_timeout at 8403c6
>>>  #3 [fadd6d7af8] wait_for_common at 83c850
>>>  #4 [fadd6d7b68] wait_for_completion_killable at 83c996
>>>  #5 [fadd6d7b88] kthread_create_on_node at 1876a4
>>>  #6 [fadd6d7cc0] create_worker at 17d7fa
>>>  #7 [fadd6d7d30] worker_thread at 17fff0
>>>  #8 [fadd6d7da0] kthread at 187884
>>>  #9 [fadd6d7ea8] kernel_thread_starter at 842552
>>>
>>> Problem is that kthreadd then needs the cgroup lock for reading,
>>> while libvirtd still has the lock for writing.
>>>
>>> crash> bt 0xfaf031e220
>>> PID: 2      TASK: faf031e220        CPU: 40  COMMAND: "kthreadd"
>>>  #0 [faf034bad8] __schedule at 83b2cc
>>>  #1 [faf034bb40] schedule at 83ba26
>>>  #2 [faf034bb58] rwsem_down_read_failed at 83fb64
>>>  #3 [faf034bbb8] percpu_down_read at 1bdf56
>>>  #4 [faf034bc20] copy_process at 15eab6
>>>  #5 [faf034bd08] _do_fork at 160430
>>>  #6 [faf034bdd0] kernel_thread at 160a82
>>>  #7 [faf034be30] kthreadd at 188580
>>>  #8 [faf034bea8] kernel_thread_starter at 842552
>>>
>>> BANG.kthreadd waits for the lock that libvirtd hold, and libvirtd waits
>>> for kthreadd to finish some task
>>
>> I don't see percpu_down_read being invoked from copy_process. According
>> to LXR, this semaphore is used only in __cgroup_procs_write and
>> cgroup_update_dfl_csses. And cgroup_update_dfl_csses is invoked when
>> cgroup.subtree_control is written to. And I don't see this happening in
>> this call chain.
> 
> The callchain is inlined and as follows:
> 
> 
> _do_fork
> copy_process
> threadgroup_change_begin
> cgroup_threadgroup_change_begin

Ah, I see I have missed that one. So essentially what's happening is
that while migrating processes using a gobal rw semaphore essentially
"disables" forking, but in this case in order to finish the migration a
task has to be spawned (the workqueue worker) and this causes the lock.
Such problems were non-existent before the percpu_rwsem rework since the
lock used was a per-threadgroup. Bummer...

Powered by blists - more mailing lists