On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 10:08 AM Jonathan Lemon
<jonathan.lemon@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 08:53:22AM -0800, Yonghong Song wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 12/11/20 9:11 AM, Jonathan Lemon wrote:
> > > From: Jonathan Lemon <bsd@xxxxxx>
> > >
> > > On some systems, some variant of the following splat is
> > > repeatedly seen. The common factor in all traces seems
> > > to be the entry point to task_file_seq_next(). With the
> > > patch, all warnings go away.
> > >
> > > rcu: INFO: rcu_sched self-detected stall on CPU
> > > rcu: \x0926-....: (20992 ticks this GP) idle=d7e/1/0x4000000000000002 softirq=81556231/81556231 fqs=4876
> > > \x09(t=21033 jiffies g=159148529 q=223125)
> > > NMI backtrace for cpu 26
> > > CPU: 26 PID: 2015853 Comm: bpftool Kdump: loaded Not tainted 5.6.13-0_fbk4_3876_gd8d1f9bf80bb #1
> > > Hardware name: Quanta Twin Lakes MP/Twin Lakes Passive MP, BIOS F09_3A12 10/08/2018
> > > 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:get_pid_task+0x38/0x80
> > > Code: 89 f6 48 8d 44 f7 08 48 8b 00 48 85 c0 74 2b 48 83 c6 55 48 c1 e6 04 48 29 f0 74 19 48 8d 78 20 ba 01 00 00 00 f0 0f c1 50 20 <85> d2 74 27 78 11 83 c2 01 78 0c 48 83 c4 08 c3 31 c0 48 83 c4 08
> > > RSP: 0018:ffffc9000d293dc8 EFLAGS: 00000202 ORIG_RAX: ffffffffffffff13
> > > RAX: ffff888637c05600 RBX: ffffc9000d293e0c RCX: 0000000000000000
> > > RDX: 0000000000000001 RSI: 0000000000000550 RDI: ffff888637c05620
> > > RBP: ffffffff8284eb80 R08: ffff88831341d300 R09: ffff88822ffd8248
> > > R10: ffff88822ffd82d0 R11: 00000000003a93c0 R12: 0000000000000001
> > > R13: 00000000ffffffff R14: ffff88831341d300 R15: 0000000000000000
> > > ? find_ge_pid+0x1b/0x20
> > > task_seq_get_next+0x52/0xc0
> > > 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
> > > RIP: 0033:0x7f95ae73e76e
> > > Code: Bad RIP value.
> > > RSP: 002b:00007ffc02c1dbf8 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000000
> > > RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 000000000170faa0 RCX: 00007f95ae73e76e
> > > RDX: 0000000000001000 RSI: 00007ffc02c1dc30 RDI: 0000000000000007
> > > RBP: 00007ffc02c1ec70 R08: 0000000000000005 R09: 0000000000000006
> > > R10: fffffffffffff20b R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 00000000019112a0
> > > R13: 0000000000000000 R14: 0000000000000007 R15: 00000000004283c0
> > >
> > > The attached patch does 3 things:
> > >
> > > 1) 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.
> >
> > Looks like this fix is the real fix for the above warnings.
> > Basically, say we have
> > info->tid = 10 and returned curr_tid = 3000 and tid 3000 has no files.
> > the current logic will go through
> > - set curr_tid = 11 (info->tid++) and returned curr_tid = 3000
> > - set curr_tid = 12 and returned curr_tid = 3000
> > ...
> > - set curr_tid = 3000 and returned curr_tid = 3000
> > - set curr_tid = 3001 and return curr_tid >= 3001
> >
> > All the above works are redundant work, and it may cause issues
> > for non preemptable kernel.
> >
> > I suggest you factor out this change plus the following change
> > which suggested by Andrii early to a separate patch carried with
> > the below Fixes tag.
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/task_iter.c b/kernel/bpf/task_iter.c
> > index 0458a40edf10..56bcaef72e36 100644
> > --- a/kernel/bpf/task_iter.c
> > +++ b/kernel/bpf/task_iter.c
> > @@ -158,6 +158,7 @@ task_file_seq_get_next(struct
> > bpf_iter_seq_task_file_info *info)
> > if (!curr_task) {
> > info->task = NULL;
> > info->files = NULL;
> > + info->tid = curr_tid + 1;
> > return NULL;
> > }
>
> Sure this isn't supposed to be 'curr_tid'? task_seq_get_next() stops
> when there are no more threads found. This increments the thread id
> past the search point, and would seem to introduce a potential off-by-one
> error.
>
> That is:
> curr_tid = 3000.
> call task_seq_get_next() --> return NULL, curr_tid = 3000.
> (so there is no tid >= 3000)
> set curr_tid = 3001.
>
> next restart (if there is one) skips a newly created 3000.
Seems fine to me to skip 3000 in such case. 3000 didn't exist at the
time of iteration. If there was >=3001 it would have been skipped as
well.
>
> --
> Jonathan
