[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a0d22f13-ac54-49b7-b22a-b319cb542cae@huawei.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2024 08:53:31 +0800
From: chenridong <chenridong@...wei.com>
To: <martin.lau@...ux.dev>, <ast@...nel.org>, <daniel@...earbox.net>,
<andrii@...nel.org>, <eddyz87@...il.com>, <song@...nel.org>,
<yonghong.song@...ux.dev>, <john.fastabend@...il.com>, <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
<sdf@...gle.com>, <haoluo@...gle.com>, <jolsa@...nel.org>, <tj@...nel.org>,
<lizefan.x@...edance.com>, <hannes@...xchg.org>, <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>
CC: <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v2] cgroup: fix deadlock caused by cgroup_mutex and
cpu_hotplug_lock
On 2024/7/19 10:52, Chen Ridong wrote:
> We found a hung_task problem as shown below:
>
> INFO: task kworker/0:0:8 blocked for more than 327 seconds.
> "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message.
> task:kworker/0:0 state:D stack:13920 pid:8 ppid:2 flags:0x00004000
> Workqueue: events cgroup_bpf_release
> Call Trace:
> <TASK>
> __schedule+0x5a2/0x2050
> ? find_held_lock+0x33/0x100
> ? wq_worker_sleeping+0x9e/0xe0
> schedule+0x9f/0x180
> schedule_preempt_disabled+0x25/0x50
> __mutex_lock+0x512/0x740
> ? cgroup_bpf_release+0x1e/0x4d0
> ? cgroup_bpf_release+0xcf/0x4d0
> ? process_scheduled_works+0x161/0x8a0
> ? cgroup_bpf_release+0x1e/0x4d0
> ? mutex_lock_nested+0x2b/0x40
> ? __pfx_delay_tsc+0x10/0x10
> mutex_lock_nested+0x2b/0x40
> cgroup_bpf_release+0xcf/0x4d0
> ? process_scheduled_works+0x161/0x8a0
> ? trace_event_raw_event_workqueue_execute_start+0x64/0xd0
> ? process_scheduled_works+0x161/0x8a0
> process_scheduled_works+0x23a/0x8a0
> worker_thread+0x231/0x5b0
> ? __pfx_worker_thread+0x10/0x10
> kthread+0x14d/0x1c0
> ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10
> ret_from_fork+0x59/0x70
> ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10
> ret_from_fork_asm+0x1b/0x30
> </TASK>
>
> This issue can be reproduced by the following methods:
> 1. A large number of cpuset cgroups are deleted.
> 2. Set cpu on and off repeatly.
> 3. Set watchdog_thresh repeatly.
>
> The reason for this issue is cgroup_mutex and cpu_hotplug_lock are
> acquired in different tasks, which may lead to deadlock.
> It can lead to a deadlock through the following steps:
> 1. A large number of cgroups are deleted, which will put a large
> number of cgroup_bpf_release works into system_wq. The max_active
> of system_wq is WQ_DFL_ACTIVE(256). When cgroup_bpf_release can not
> get cgroup_metux, it may cram system_wq, and it will block work
> enqueued later.
> 2. Setting watchdog_thresh will hold cpu_hotplug_lock.read and put
> smp_call_on_cpu work into system_wq. However it may be blocked by
> step 1.
> 3. Cpu offline requires cpu_hotplug_lock.write, which is blocked by step 2.
> 4. When a cpuset is deleted, cgroup release work is placed on
> cgroup_destroy_wq, it will hold cgroup_metux and acquire
> cpu_hotplug_lock.read. Acquiring cpu_hotplug_lock.read is blocked by
> cpu_hotplug_lock.write as mentioned by step 3. Finally, it forms a
> loop and leads to a deadlock.
>
> cgroup_destroy_wq(step4) cpu offline(step3) WatchDog(step2) system_wq(step1)
> ......
> __lockup_detector_reconfigure:
> P(cpu_hotplug_lock.read)
> ...
> ...
> percpu_down_write:
> P(cpu_hotplug_lock.write)
> ...256+ works
> cgroup_bpf_release:
> P(cgroup_mutex)
> smp_call_on_cpu:
> Wait system_wq
> ...
> css_killed_work_fn:
> P(cgroup_mutex)
> ...
> cpuset_css_offline:
> P(cpu_hotplug_lock.read)
>
> To fix the problem, place cgroup_bpf_release works on cgroup_destroy_wq,
> which can break the loop and solve the problem. System wqs are for misc
> things which shouldn't create a large number of concurrent work items.
> If something is going to generate >WQ_DFL_ACTIVE(256) concurrent work
> items, it should use its own dedicated workqueue.
>
> Fixes: 4bfc0bb2c60e ("bpf: decouple the lifetime of cgroup_bpf from cgroup itself")
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/cgroups/e90c32d2-2a85-4f28-9154-09c7d320cb60@huawei.com/T/#t
> Signed-off-by: Chen Ridong <chenridong@...wei.com>
> ---
> kernel/bpf/cgroup.c | 2 +-
> kernel/cgroup/cgroup-internal.h | 1 +
> kernel/cgroup/cgroup.c | 2 +-
> 3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/cgroup.c b/kernel/bpf/cgroup.c
> index 8ba73042a239..a611a1274788 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/cgroup.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/cgroup.c
> @@ -334,7 +334,7 @@ static void cgroup_bpf_release_fn(struct percpu_ref *ref)
> struct cgroup *cgrp = container_of(ref, struct cgroup, bpf.refcnt);
>
> INIT_WORK(&cgrp->bpf.release_work, cgroup_bpf_release);
> - queue_work(system_wq, &cgrp->bpf.release_work);
> + queue_work(cgroup_destroy_wq, &cgrp->bpf.release_work);
> }
>
> /* Get underlying bpf_prog of bpf_prog_list entry, regardless if it's through
> diff --git a/kernel/cgroup/cgroup-internal.h b/kernel/cgroup/cgroup-internal.h
> index 520b90dd97ec..9e57f3e9316e 100644
> --- a/kernel/cgroup/cgroup-internal.h
> +++ b/kernel/cgroup/cgroup-internal.h
> @@ -13,6 +13,7 @@
> extern spinlock_t trace_cgroup_path_lock;
> extern char trace_cgroup_path[TRACE_CGROUP_PATH_LEN];
> extern void __init enable_debug_cgroup(void);
> +extern struct workqueue_struct *cgroup_destroy_wq;
>
> /*
> * cgroup_path() takes a spin lock. It is good practice not to take
> diff --git a/kernel/cgroup/cgroup.c b/kernel/cgroup/cgroup.c
> index e32b6972c478..3317e03fe2fb 100644
> --- a/kernel/cgroup/cgroup.c
> +++ b/kernel/cgroup/cgroup.c
> @@ -124,7 +124,7 @@ DEFINE_PERCPU_RWSEM(cgroup_threadgroup_rwsem);
> * destruction work items don't end up filling up max_active of system_wq
> * which may lead to deadlock.
> */
> -static struct workqueue_struct *cgroup_destroy_wq;
> +struct workqueue_struct *cgroup_destroy_wq;
>
> /* generate an array of cgroup subsystem pointers */
> #define SUBSYS(_x) [_x ## _cgrp_id] = &_x ## _cgrp_subsys,
Friendly ping.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists