"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 11:06:04PM +0100, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>> "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>> > On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 10:04:50PM +0100, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>> >> Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> >>
>> >> > On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 12:52 PM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 06:29:35PM +0100, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>> >> >> >> "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 01:26:36PM +0100, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> Hi Paul
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Magnus and I have been debugging an issue where close() on a bpf_link
>> >> >> >> >> file descriptor would hang indefinitely when the system was under load
>> >> >> >> >> on a kernel compiled with CONFIG_PREEMPT=y, and it seems to be related
>> >> >> >> >> to synchronize_rcu_tasks(), so I'm hoping you can help us with it.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> The issue is triggered reliably by loading up a system with network
>> >> >> >> >> traffic (causing 100% softirq CPU load on one or more cores), and then
>> >> >> >> >> attaching an freplace bpf_link and closing it again. The close() will
>> >> >> >> >> hang until the network traffic load is lowered.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Digging further, it appears that the hang happens in
>> >> >> >> >> synchronize_rcu_tasks(), as seen by running a bpftrace script like:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> bpftrace -e 'kprobe:synchronize_rcu_tasks { @start = nsecs; printf("enter\n"); } kretprobe:synchronize_rcu_tasks { printf("exit after %d ms\n", (nsecs - @start) / 1000000); }'
>> >> >> >> >> Attaching 2 probes...
>> >> >> >> >> enter
>> >> >> >> >> exit after 54 ms
>> >> >> >> >> enter
>> >> >> >> >> exit after 3249 ms
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> (the two enter/exit pairs are, respectively, from an unloaded system,
>> >> >> >> >> and from a loaded system where I stopped the network traffic after a
>> >> >> >> >> couple of seconds).
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> The call to synchronize_rcu_tasks() happens in bpf_trampoline_put():
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/kernel/bpf/trampoline.c#L376
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> And because it does this while holding trampoline_mutex, even deferring
>> >> >> >> >> the put to a worker (as a previously applied-then-reverted patch did[0])
>> >> >> >> >> doesn't help: that'll fix the initial hang on close(), but any
>> >> >> >> >> subsequent use of BPF trampolines will then be blocked because of the
>> >> >> >> >> mutex.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Also, if I just keep the network traffic running I will eventually get a
>> >> >> >> >> kernel panic with:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> kernel:[44348.426312] Kernel panic - not syncing: hung_task: blocked tasks
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> I've created a reproducer for the issue here:
>> >> >> >> >> https://github.com/xdp-project/bpf-examples/tree/master/bpf-link-hang
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> To compile simply do this (needs a recent llvm/clang for compiling the BPF program):
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> $ git clone --recurse-submodules https://github.com/xdp-project/bpf-examples
>> >> >> >> >> $ cd bpf-examples/bpf-link-hang
>> >> >> >> >> $ make
>> >> >> >> >> $ ./sudo bpf-link-hang
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> you'll need to load up the system to trigger the hang; I'm using pktgen
>> >> >> >> >> from a separate machine to do this.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> My question is, of course, as ever, What Is To Be Done? Is it expected
>> >> >> >> >> that synchronize_rcu_tasks() can hang indefinitely on a PREEMPT system,
>> >> >> >> >> or can this be fixed? And if it is expected, how can the BPF code be
>> >> >> >> >> fixed so it doesn't deadlock because of this?
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Hoping you can help us with this - many thanks in advance! :)
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Let me start with the usual question... Is the network traffic intense
>> >> >> >> > enough that one of the CPUs might remain in a loop handling softirqs
>> >> >> >> > indefinitely?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Yup, I'm pegging all CPUs in softirq:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> $ mpstat -P ALL 1
>> >> >> >> [...]
>> >> >> >> 18:26:52 CPU %usr %nice %sys %iowait %irq %soft %steal %guest %gnice %idle
>> >> >> >> 18:26:53 all 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
>> >> >> >> 18:26:53 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
>> >> >> >> 18:26:53 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
>> >> >> >> 18:26:53 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
>> >> >> >> 18:26:53 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
>> >> >> >> 18:26:53 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
>> >> >> >> 18:26:53 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > If so, does the (untested, probably does not build) patch below help?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Doesn't appear to, no. It builds fine, but I still get:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Attaching 2 probes...
>> >> >> >> enter
>> >> >> >> exit after 8480 ms
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> (that was me interrupting the network traffic again)
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Is your kernel properly shifting from back-of-interrupt softirq processing
>> >> >> > to ksoftirqd under heavy load? If not, my patch will not have any
>> >> >> > effect.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Seems to be - this is from top:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 12 root 20 0 0 0 0 R 99.3 0.0 0:43.64 ksoftirqd/0
>> >> >> 24 root 20 0 0 0 0 R 99.3 0.0 0:43.62 ksoftirqd/2
>> >> >> 34 root 20 0 0 0 0 R 99.3 0.0 0:43.64 ksoftirqd/4
>> >> >> 39 root 20 0 0 0 0 R 99.3 0.0 0:43.65 ksoftirqd/5
>> >> >> 19 root 20 0 0 0 0 R 99.0 0.0 0:43.63 ksoftirqd/1
>> >> >> 29 root 20 0 0 0 0 R 99.0 0.0 0:43.63 ksoftirqd/3
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Any other ideas? :)
>> >> >
>> >> > bpf_trampoline_put() got significantly changed by e21aa341785c ("bpf:
>> >> > Fix fexit trampoline. "), it doesn't do synchronize_rcu_tasks()
>> >> > anymore. Please give it a try. It's in bpf tree.
>> >>
>> >> Ah! I had missed that patch, and only tested this on bpf-next. Yes, that
>> >> indeed works better; awesome!
>> >>
>> >> And sorry for bothering you with this, Paul; guess I should have looked
>> >> harder for fixes first... :/
>> >
>> > Glad it is now working!
>> >
>> > And in any case, my patch needed an s/true/false/. :-/
>> >
>> > Hey, I did say "untested"! ;-)
>>
>> Haha, right, well at least you run afoul of the 'truth in advertising'
>> committee ;)
>
> If you get a chance, could you please test the (hopefully) corrected
> patch shown below? This issue might affect other use cases.
Yup, that does seem to help:
Attaching 2 probes...
enter
exit after 136 ms
-Toke
