[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240121120754.GA2814@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2024 13:07:54 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Dylan Hatch <dylanbhatch@...gle.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
"Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
"Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Vincent Whitchurch <vincent.whitchurch@...s.com>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
Mike Christie <michael.christie@...cle.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Stefan Roesch <shr@...kernel.io>, Joey Gouly <joey.gouly@....com>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>, Helge Deller <deller@....de>,
Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@...hat.com>,
Florent Revest <revest@...omium.org>,
Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] getrusage: use sig->stats_lock
On 01/20, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 19:27:49 -0800 Dylan Hatch <dylanbhatch@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > I applied these to a 5.10 kernel, and my repro (calling getrusage(RUSAGE_SELF)
> > from 200K threads) is no longer triggering a hard lockup.
>
> Thanks, but...
>
> The changelogs don't actually describe any hard lockup. [1/2] does
> mention "the deadlock" but that's all the info we have.
Sorry for confusion... 1/2 tries to explain that this change is not
strictly necessary for 2/2, it is safe to call thread_group_cputime()
with sig->stats_lock held for writing even if thread_group_cputime()
takes the same lock, because in this case thread_group_cputime() can't
enter the slow mode.
> So could we please have a suitable description of the bug which these are
> addressing? And a Reported-by:, a Closes: and a Fixes would be great too.
Yes sorry I forgot to add Reported-by. So I'll try to update the changelog
and add Reported-and-tested-by.
But the problem is known and old. I think do_io_accounting() had the same
problem until 1df4bd83cdfdbd0 ("do_io_accounting: use sig->stats_lock").
and do_task_stat() ...
getrusage() takes siglock and does for_each_thread() twice. If NR_THREADS
call sys_getrusage() in an endless loop on NR_CPUS, lock_task_sighand()
can trigger a hard lockup because it spins with irqs disabled waiting
for other NR_CPUS-1 which need the same siglock. So the time it spins
with irqs disabled is O(NR_CPUS * NR_THREADS).
With this patch all the threads can run lockless in parallel in the
likely case.
Dylan, do you have a better description? Can you share your repro?
although I think that something simple like
#define NT BIG_NUMBER
pthread_barrier_t barr;
void *thread(void *arg)
{
struct rusage ru;
pthread_barrier_wait(&barr);
for (;;)
getrusage(RUSAGE_SELF, &ru);
return NULL;
}
int main(void)
{
pthread_barrier_init(&barr, NULL, NT);
for (int n = 0; n < NT-1; ++n) {
pthread_t pt;
pthread_create(&pt, NULL, thread, NULL);
}
thread(NULL);
return 0;
}
should work if you have a machine with a lot of memory/cpus.
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists