On 7/27/23 4:46 PM, YiFei Zhu wrote:
On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 2:59 PM Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 7/27/23 1:18 PM, YiFei Zhu wrote:
In internal testing of test_maps, we sometimes observed failures like:
test_maps: test_maps.c:173: void test_hashmap_percpu(unsigned int, void *):
Assertion `bpf_map_update_elem(fd, &key, value, BPF_ANY) == 0' failed.
where the errno is ENOMEM. After some troubleshooting and enabling
the warnings, we saw:
[ 91.304708] percpu: allocation failed, size=8 align=8 atomic=1, atomic alloc failed, no space left
[ 91.304716] CPU: 51 PID: 24145 Comm: test_maps Kdump: loaded Tainted: G N 6.1.38-smp-DEV #7
[ 91.304719] Hardware name: Google Astoria/astoria, BIOS 0.20230627.0-0 06/27/2023
[ 91.304721] Call Trace:
[ 91.304724] <TASK>
[ 91.304730] [<ffffffffa7ef83b9>] dump_stack_lvl+0x59/0x88
[ 91.304737] [<ffffffffa7ef83f8>] dump_stack+0x10/0x18
[ 91.304738] [<ffffffffa75caa0c>] pcpu_alloc+0x6fc/0x870
[ 91.304741] [<ffffffffa75ca302>] __alloc_percpu_gfp+0x12/0x20
[ 91.304743] [<ffffffffa756785e>] alloc_bulk+0xde/0x1e0
[ 91.304746] [<ffffffffa7566c02>] bpf_mem_alloc_init+0xd2/0x2f0
[ 91.304747] [<ffffffffa7547c69>] htab_map_alloc+0x479/0x650
[ 91.304750] [<ffffffffa751d6e0>] map_create+0x140/0x2e0
[ 91.304752] [<ffffffffa751d413>] __sys_bpf+0x5a3/0x6c0
[ 91.304753] [<ffffffffa751c3ec>] __x64_sys_bpf+0x1c/0x30
[ 91.304754] [<ffffffffa7ef847a>] do_syscall_64+0x5a/0x80
[ 91.304756] [<ffffffffa800009b>] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd
This makes sense, because in atomic context, percpu allocation would
not create new chunks; it would only create in non-atomic contexts.
And if during prefill all precpu chunks are full, -ENOMEM would
happen immediately upon next unit_alloc.
Prefill phase does not actually run in atomic context, so we can
use this fact to allocate non-atomically with GFP_KERNEL instead
of GFP_NOWAIT. This avoids the immediate -ENOMEM.
Unfortunately unit_alloc runs in atomic context, even from map
item allocation in syscalls, due to rcu_read_lock, so we can't do
non-atomic workarounds in unit_alloc.
The above description is not clear to me. Do you mean
GFP_NOWAIT has to be used in unit_alloc when bpf program runs
in atomic context. Even if bpf program runs in non-atomic context,
in most cases, rcu read lock is enabled for the program so
GFP_NOWAIT is still needed.
I actually meant that in syscall BPF_MAP_UPDATE_ELEM, at least in the
case of hashmap_percpu the code path is rcu read locked, so one cannot
do non-atomic allocations even from syscalls. Hmm, shall I I change it
Indeed, some syscall triggered operation also has rcu enabled for map
operations.
to something like this?
GFP_NOWAIT has to be used in unit_alloc when bpf program runs
in atomic context. Even if bpf program runs in non-atomic context,
in most cases, rcu read lock is enabled for the program so
GFP_NOWAIT is still needed. This is often also the case for
BPF_MAP_UPDATE_ELEM syscalls.
LGTM. Thanks.
The exception is sleepable bpf program in non-atomic context,
e.g., sleepable bpf_iter program, sleepable fentry program
in non-atomic context, and the unit_alloc is not inside
bpf_rcu_read_lock kfunc. But this is too complicated and
probably not worthwhile to special-case it.
Ack.
Signed-off-by: YiFei Zhu <zhuyifei@xxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@xxxxxx>
[...]
