Date:   Fri, 9 Dec 2016 20:59:52 -0500
From:   Josef Bacik <jbacik@...com>
To:     Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
CC:     Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>,
        Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Soft lockup in inet_put_port on 4.6

On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 8:01 PM, Josef Bacik <jbacik@...com> wrote:
> 
>>  On Dec 8, 2016, at 7:32 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>>  On Thu, 2016-12-08 at 16:36 -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
>>> 
>>>  We can reproduce the problem at will, still trying to run down the
>>>  problem.  I'll try and find one of the boxes that dumped a core 
>>> and get
>>>  a bt of everybody.  Thanks,
>> 
>>  OK, sounds good.
>> 
>>  I had a look and :
>>  - could not spot a fix that came after 4.6.
>>  - could not spot an obvious bug.
>> 
>>  Anything special in the program triggering the issue ?
>>  SO_REUSEPORT and/or special socket options ?
>> 
> 
> So they recently started using SO_REUSEPORT, that's what triggered 
> it, if they don't use it then everything is fine.
> 
> I added some instrumentation for get_port to see if it was looping in 
> there and none of my printk's triggered.  The softlockup messages are 
> always on the inet_bind_bucket lock, sometimes in the process context 
> in get_port or in the softirq context either through inet_put_port or 
> inet_kill_twsk.  On the box that I have a coredump for there's only 
> one processor in the inet code so I'm not sure what to make of that.  
> That was a box from last week so I'll look at a more recent core and 
> see if it's different.  Thanks,

Ok more investigation today, a few bullet points

- With all the debugging turned on the boxes seem to recover after 
about a minute.  I'd get the spam of the soft lockup messages all on 
the inet_bind_bucket, and then the box would be fine.
- I looked at a core I had from before I started investigating things 
and there's only one process trying to get the inet_bind_bucket of all 
the 48 cpus.
- I noticed that there was over 100k twsk's in that original core.
- I put a global counter of the twsk's (since most of the softlockup 
messages have the twsk timers in the stack) and noticed with the 
debugging kernel it started around 16k twsk's and once it recovered it 
was down to less than a thousand.  There's a jump where it goes from 8k 
to 2k and then there's only one more softlockup message and the box is 
fine.
- This happens when we restart the service with the config option to 
start using SO_REUSEPORT.

The application is our load balancing app, so obviously has lots of 
connections opened at any given time.  What I'm wondering and will test 
on Monday is if the SO_REUSEPORT change even matters, or if simply 
restarting the service is what triggers the problem.  One thing I 
forgot to mention is that it's also using TCP_FASTOPEN in both the 
non-reuseport and reuseport variants.

What I suspect is happening is the service stops, all of the sockets it 
had open go into TIMEWAIT with relatively the same timer period, and 
then suddenly all wake up at the same time which coupled with the 
massive amount of traffic that we see per box anyway results in so much 
contention and ksoftirqd usage that the box livelocks for a while.  
With the lock debugging and stuff turned on we aren't able to service 
as much traffic so it recovers relatively quickly, whereas a normal 
production kernel never recovers.

Please keep in mind that I"m a file system developer so my conclusions 
may be completely insane, any guidance would be welcome.  I'll continue 
hammering on this on Monday.  Thanks,

Josef

Powered by blists - more mailing lists