linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] Suppress undesirable hung task warnings.

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

Message-ID: <9665ff9f-3e1d-4c39-8c8f-b9e12fb4d5f4@linux.dev>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2025 10:30:18 +0800
From: Lance Yang <lance.yang@...ux.dev>
To: Julian Sun <sunjunchao@...edance.com>,
 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: mhiramat@...nel.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, brauner@...nel.org,
 jack@...e.cz, mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
 vincent.guittot@...aro.org, dietmar.eggemann@....com, rostedt@...dmis.org,
 bsegall@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de, vschneid@...hat.com,
 agruenba@...hat.com, hannes@...xchg.org, mhocko@...nel.org,
 roman.gushchin@...ux.dev, shakeel.butt@...ux.dev, muchun.song@...ux.dev,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Suppress undesirable hung task warnings.

On 2025/9/23 05:57, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 19:38:21 +0800 Lance Yang <lance.yang@...ux.dev> wrote:
> 
>> On 2025/9/22 17:41, Julian Sun wrote:
>>> As suggested by Andrew Morton in [1], we need a general mechanism
>>> that allows the hung task detector to ignore unnecessary hung
>>
>> Yep, I understand the goal is to suppress what can be a benign hung task
>> warning during memcg teardown.
>>
>>> tasks. This patch set implements this functionality.
>>>
>>> Patch 1 introduces a PF_DONT_HUNG flag. The hung task detector will
>>> ignores all tasks that have the PF_DONT_HUNG flag set.
>>
>> However, I'm concerned that the PF_DONT_HUNG flag is a bit too powerful
>> and might mask real, underlying hangs.
> 
> I think that's OK if the calling task is discriminating about it.  Just
> set PF_DONT_HUNG (unpleasing name!) around those bits of code where
> it's needed, clear it otherwise.

Makes sense to me :)

> 
> Julian, did you take a look at what a touch_hung_task_detector() would
> involve?  It's a bit of an interface inconsistency - our various other
> timeout detectors (softlockup, NMI, rcu) each have a touch_ function.

On second thought, I agree that a touch_hung_task_detector() would be a
much better approach for interface consistency.

We could implement touch_hung_task_detector() to grant the task temporary
immunity from hung task checks for as long as it remains uninterruptible.
Once the task becomes runnable again, the immunity is automatically revoked.

Something like this:

---
diff --git a/include/linux/hung_task.h b/include/linux/hung_task.h
index c4403eeb7144..fac92039dce0 100644
--- a/include/linux/hung_task.h
+++ b/include/linux/hung_task.h
@@ -98,4 +98,9 @@ static inline void *hung_task_blocker_to_lock(unsigned 
long blocker)
  }
  #endif

+void touch_hung_task_detector(struct task_struct *t)
+{
+	t->last_switch_count = ULONG_MAX;
+}
+
  #endif /* __LINUX_HUNG_TASK_H */
diff --git a/kernel/hung_task.c b/kernel/hung_task.c
index 8708a1205f82..094a277b3b39 100644
--- a/kernel/hung_task.c
+++ b/kernel/hung_task.c
@@ -203,6 +203,9 @@ static void check_hung_task(struct task_struct *t, 
unsigned long timeout)
  	if (unlikely(!switch_count))
  		return;

+	if (t->last_switch_count == ULONG_MAX)
+		return;
+
  	if (switch_count != t->last_switch_count) {
  		t->last_switch_count = switch_count;
  		t->last_switch_time = jiffies;
@@ -317,6 +320,9 @@ static void 
check_hung_uninterruptible_tasks(unsigned long timeout)
  		    !(state & TASK_WAKEKILL) &&
  		    !(state & TASK_NOLOAD))
  			check_hung_task(t, timeout);
+		else if (t->last_switch_count == ULONG_MAX)
+			t->last_switch_count = t->nvcsw + t->nivcsw;
+
  	}
   unlock:
  	rcu_read_unlock();
diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
index 8dc470aa6c3c..3d5f36455b74 100644
--- a/mm/memcontrol.c
+++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
@@ -3910,8 +3910,10 @@ static void mem_cgroup_css_free(struct 
cgroup_subsys_state *css)
  	int __maybe_unused i;

  #ifdef CONFIG_CGROUP_WRITEBACK
-	for (i = 0; i < MEMCG_CGWB_FRN_CNT; i++)
+	for (i = 0; i < MEMCG_CGWB_FRN_CNT; i++) {
+		touch_hung_task_detector(current);
  		wb_wait_for_completion(&memcg->cgwb_frn[i].done);
+	}
  #endif
  	if (cgroup_subsys_on_dfl(memory_cgrp_subsys) && !cgroup_memory_nosocket)
  		static_branch_dec(&memcg_sockets_enabled_key);
---

Using ULONG_MAX as a marker to grant this immunity. As long as the task
remains in state D, check_hung_task() sees the marker and bails out.