On 12/4/20 9:14 AM, Jonathan Lemon wrote:
On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 12:01:53AM -0800, Yonghong Song wrote:
On 12/3/20 7:43 PM, Jonathan Lemon wrote:
From: Jonathan Lemon <b...@fb.com>
Could you explain in the commit log what problem this patch
tries to solve? What bad things could happen without this patch?
Without the patch, on a particular set of systems, RCU will repeatedly
generate stall warnings similar to the trace below. The common factor
for all the traces seems to be using task_file_seq_next(). With the
patch, all the warnings go away.
rcu: INFO: rcu_sched self-detected stall on CPU
rcu: \x0910-....: (20666 ticks this GP) idle=4b6/1/0x4000000000000002
softirq=14346773/14346773 fqs=5064
\x09(t=21013 jiffies g=25395133 q=154147)
NMI backtrace for cpu 10
#1
Hardware name: Quanta Leopard ORv2-DDR4/Leopard ORv2-DDR4, BIOS F06_3B17
03/16/2018
Call Trace:
<IRQ>
dump_stack+0x50/0x70
nmi_cpu_backtrace.cold.6+0x13/0x50
? lapic_can_unplug_cpu.cold.30+0x40/0x40
nmi_trigger_cpumask_backtrace+0xba/0xca
rcu_dump_cpu_stacks+0x99/0xc7
rcu_sched_clock_irq.cold.90+0x1b4/0x3aa
? tick_sched_do_timer+0x60/0x60
update_process_times+0x24/0x50
tick_sched_timer+0x37/0x70
__hrtimer_run_queues+0xfe/0x270
hrtimer_interrupt+0xf4/0x210
smp_apic_timer_interrupt+0x5e/0x120
apic_timer_interrupt+0xf/0x20
</IRQ>
RIP: 0010:find_ge_pid_upd+0x5/0x20
Code: 80 00 00 00 00 0f 1f 44 00 00 48 83 ec 08 89 7c 24 04 48 8d 7e 08 48 8d 74 24
04 e8 d5 d3 9a 00 48 83 c4 08 c3 0f 1f 44 00 00 <48> 89 f8 48 8d 7e 08 48 89 c6
e9 bc d3 9a 00 cc cc cc cc cc cc cc
RSP: 0018:ffffc9002b7abdb8 EFLAGS: 00000297 ORIG_RAX: ffffffffffffff13
RAX: 00000000002ca5cd RBX: ffff889c44c0ba00 RCX: 0000000000000000
RDX: 0000000000000002 RSI: ffffffff8284eb80 RDI: ffffc9002b7abdc4
RBP: ffffc9002b7abe0c R08: ffff8895afe93a00 R09: ffff8891388abb50
R10: 000000000000000c R11: 00000000002ca600 R12: 000000000000003f
R13: ffffffff8284eb80 R14: 0000000000000001 R15: 00000000ffffffff
task_seq_get_next+0x53/0x180
task_file_seq_get_next+0x159/0x220
task_file_seq_next+0x4f/0xa0
bpf_seq_read+0x159/0x390
vfs_read+0x8a/0x140
ksys_read+0x59/0xd0
do_syscall_64+0x42/0x110
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
Maybe you can post v3 of the patch with the above information in the
commit description so people can better understand what the problem
you are trying to solve here?
Also, could you also send to b...@vger.kernel.org?
If unable to obtain the file structure for the current task,
proceed to the next task number after the one returned from
task_seq_get_next(), instead of the next task number from the
original iterator.
This seems a correct change. The current code should still work
but it may do some redundant/unnecessary work in kernel.
This only happens when a task does not have any file,
no sure whether this is the culprit for the problem this
patch tries to address.
Use thread_group_leader() instead of comparing tgid vs pid, which
might may be racy.
I see
static inline bool thread_group_leader(struct task_struct *p)
{
return p->exit_signal >= 0;
}
I am not sure whether thread_group_leader(task) is equivalent
to task->tgid == task->pid or not. Any documentation or explanation?
Could you explain why task->tgid != task->pid in the original
code could be racy?
My understanding is that anything which uses pid_t for comparision
in the kernel is incorrect. Looking at de_thread(), there is a
section which swaps the pid and tids around, but doesn't seem to
change tgid directly.
There's also this comment in linux/pid.h:
/*
* Both old and new leaders may be attached to
* the same pid in the middle of de_thread().
*/
So the safest thing to do is use the explicit thread_group_leader()
macro rather than trying to open code things.
I did some limited experiments and did not trigger a case where
task->tgid != task->pid not agreeing with !thread_group_leader().
Will need more tests in the environment to reproduce the warning
to confirm whether this is the culprit or not.
Only obtain the task reference count at the end of the RCU section
instead of repeatedly obtaining/releasing it when iterathing though
a thread group.
I think this is an optimization and not about the correctness.
Yes, but the loop in question can be executed thousands of times, and
there isn't much point in doing this needless work. It's unclear
whether this is a significant time contribution to the RCU stall,
but reducing the amount of refcounting isn't a bad thing.
