linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched/schedutil: Fix deadlock between cpuset and cpu hotplug when using schedutil

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Tue, 12 Jul 2022 13:42:37 +0800
From:   Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan94@...il.com>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:     Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>,
        Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan@...soc.com>, rafael@...nel.org,
        viresh.kumar@...aro.org, mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org,
        juri.lelli@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
        dietmar.eggemann@....com, bsegall@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de,
        bristot@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        ke.wang@...soc.com, xuewyan@...mail.com, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
        Lukasz Luba <Lukasz.Luba@....com>,
        "pengcheng.lai@...soc.com" <pengcheng.lai@...soc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/schedutil: Fix deadlock between cpuset and cpu
 hotplug when using schedutil

On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 5:34 AM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 10:58:28 -1000
> Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> > I don't think lockdep would be able to track CPU1 -> CPU2 dependency here
> > unfortunately.
> >
> > > AFAIU:
> > >
> > >
> > > CPU0                                     CPU1                                   CPU2
> > >
> > > // attach task to a different
> > > // cpuset cgroup via sysfs
> > > __acquire(cgroup_threadgroup_rwsem)
> > >
> > >                                          // pring up CPU2 online
> > >                                          __acquire(cpu_hotplug_lock)
> > >                                          // wait for CPU2 to come online
>
> Should there be some annotation here that tells lockdep that CPU1 is now
> blocked on CPU2?
>
> Then this case would be caught by lockdep.
>
> -- Steve
>
>
> > >                                                                                 // bringup cpu online
> > >                                                                                 // call cpufreq_online() which tries to create sugov kthread
> > > __acquire(cpu_hotplug_lock)                                                     copy_process()
> > >                                                                                    cgroup_can_fork()
> > >                                                                                       cgroup_css_set_fork()
> > >                                                                                       __acquire(cgroup_threadgroup_rwsem)
> > > // blocks forever                        // blocks forever                            // blocks forever
> > >

Indeed, It's caused by threads instead of cpus.

Our soc contains two cpufreq policy.0-5 belongs to policy0, 6-7
belongs to policy1.

when cpu6/7 online

Thread-A                                                      Thread-B
                          cpuhp/6
  kthreadd

cgroup_file_write                                          device_online
cgroup1_tasks_write                                              ...
__cgroup1_procs_write                                      _cpu_up
write(&cgroup_threadgroup_rwsem); <<     cpus_write_lock();<<
cgroup_attach_task                                               ......
cgroup_migrate_execute                             cpuhp_kick_ap
--------->  cpuhp_thread_fun
cpuset_attach                                               //waiting
for cpuhp             cpuhp_invoke_callback
cpus_read_lock()
                             cpuhp_cpufreq_online

                                         cpufreq_online
 //blocked
                                    sugov_init

                                        __kthread_create_on_node
      kthreadd

                                       //blocked, waiting for kthreadd
         copy_process


                          cgroup_can_fork


                          cgroup_css_set_fork


                          __acquires(&cgroup_threadgroup_rwsem)

So it's logic is:
Thread-A ----->Thread-B------>cpuhp----->kthreadd-----
     ^
              |
     |<---------------------------------------------------------------<-

When cpu offline, the sugov thread would stop, so it would waiting
cgroup_threadgroup_rwsem when kthread_stop();
It's logic is:
Thread-A ----->Thread-B------>cpuhp-------->sugov-----
     ^
              |
     |<---------------------------------------------------------------<-


As Qais said:
> if there's anything else that creates a kthread when a cpu goes online/offline
> then we'll hit the same problem again.

Indeed, only the cpuhp thread create/destroy kthread would cause the case.


I have put the test script in the mail, and I have tested it without
monkey test, the deadlock still occurs..


Thanks!
xuewen.yan

View attachment "test_hotplug.sh" of type "text/x-sh" (1287 bytes)