linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] blk-cgroup: Use cond

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ace471fc-4ba9-c16a-65af-102a5425e4e4@linux.alibaba.com>
Date:   Thu, 28 Jan 2021 09:35:40 +0800
From:   Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
To:     Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:     axboe@...nel.dk, joseph.qi@...ux.alibaba.com,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] blk-cgroup: Use cond_resched() when destroy blkgs

Hi Tejun,

> Hello, Baolin.
> 
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 09:33:25PM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote:
>> On !PREEMPT kernel, we can get below softlockup when doing stress
>> testing with creating and destroying block cgroup repeatly. The
>> reason is it may take a long time to acquire the queue's lock in
>> the loop of blkcg_destroy_blkgs(), thus we can use cond_resched()
>> instead of cpu_relax() to avoid this issue, since the
>> blkcg_destroy_blkgs() is not called from atomic contexts.
>>
>> [ 4757.010308] watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#11 stuck for 94s!
>> [ 4757.010698] Call trace:
>> [ 4757.010700]  blkcg_destroy_blkgs+0x68/0x150
>> [ 4757.010701]  cgwb_release_workfn+0x104/0x158
>> [ 4757.010702]  process_one_work+0x1bc/0x3f0
>> [ 4757.010704]  worker_thread+0x164/0x468
>> [ 4757.010705]  kthread+0x108/0x138
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
> 
> * Can you please add might_sleep() at the top of the function?

Sure.

> 
> * Given that the system can accumulate a huge number of blkgs in
>    pathological cases, I wonder whether a better way to go about it is
>    explicitly testing need_resched() on each loop and release locks and do
>    cond_resched() if true?

Yes, sound better to to me and will update in next version. Thanks for 
your sugestion.