On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 12:33:47PM +0100, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> "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
Thank you very much! May I please apply your Tested-by?
Thanx, Paul
