Hi,
On 8/29/2023 11:26 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 6:57 AM Hou Tao <houtao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 8/27/2023 10:53 PM, Yonghong Song wrote:
>>>
>>> On 8/27/23 1:37 AM, Björn Töpel wrote:
>>>> Björn Töpel <bjorn@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Hou Tao <houtao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/26/2023 5:23 PM, Björn Töpel wrote:
>>>>>>> Hou Tao <houtao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 8/25/2023 11:28 PM, Yonghong Song wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 8/25/23 3:32 AM, Björn Töpel wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I'm chasing a workqueue hang on RISC-V/qemu (TCG), using the bpf
>>>>>>>>>> selftests on bpf-next 9e3b47abeb8f.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm able to reproduce the hang by multiple runs of:
>>>>>>>>>> | ./test_progs -a link_api -a linked_list
>>>>>>>>>> I'm currently investigating that.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But! Sometimes (every blue moon) I get a warn_on_once hit:
>>>>>>>>>> | ------------[ cut here ]------------
>>>>>>>>>> | WARNING: CPU: 3 PID: 261 at kernel/bpf/memalloc.c:342
>>>>>>>>>> bpf_mem_refill+0x1fc/0x206
>>>>>>>>>> | Modules linked in: bpf_testmod(OE)
>>>>>>>>>> | CPU: 3 PID: 261 Comm: test_progs-cpuv Tainted: G OE
>>>>>>>>>> N 6.5.0-rc5-01743-gdcb152bb8328 #2
>>>>>>>>>> | Hardware name: riscv-virtio,qemu (DT)
>>>>>>>>>> | epc : bpf_mem_refill+0x1fc/0x206
>>>>>>>>>> | ra : irq_work_single+0x68/0x70
>>>>>>>>>> | epc : ffffffff801b1bc4 ra : ffffffff8015fe84 sp :
>>>>>>>>>> ff2000000001be20
>>>>>>>>>> | gp : ffffffff82d26138 tp : ff6000008477a800 t0 :
>>>>>>>>>> 0000000000046600
>>>>>>>>>> | t1 : ffffffff812b6ddc t2 : 0000000000000000 s0 :
>>>>>>>>>> ff2000000001be70
>>>>>>>>>> | s1 : ff5ffffffffe8998 a0 : ff5ffffffffe8998 a1 :
>>>>>>>>>> ff600003fef4b000
>>>>>>>>>> | a2 : 000000000000003f a3 : ffffffff80008250 a4 :
>>>>>>>>>> 0000000000000060
>>>>>>>>>> | a5 : 0000000000000080 a6 : 0000000000000000 a7 :
>>>>>>>>>> 0000000000735049
>>>>>>>>>> | s2 : ff5ffffffffe8998 s3 : 0000000000000022 s4 :
>>>>>>>>>> 0000000000001000
>>>>>>>>>> | s5 : 0000000000000007 s6 : ff5ffffffffe8570 s7 :
>>>>>>>>>> ffffffff82d6bd30
>>>>>>>>>> | s8 : 000000000000003f s9 : ffffffff82d2c5e8 s10:
>>>>>>>>>> 000000000000ffff
>>>>>>>>>> | s11: ffffffff82d2c5d8 t3 : ffffffff81ea8f28 t4 :
>>>>>>>>>> 0000000000000000
>>>>>>>>>> | t5 : ff6000008fd28278 t6 : 0000000000040000
>>>>>>>>>> | status: 0000000200000100 badaddr: 0000000000000000 cause:
>>>>>>>>>> 0000000000000003
>>>>>>>>>> | [<ffffffff801b1bc4>] bpf_mem_refill+0x1fc/0x206
>>>>>>>>>> | [<ffffffff8015fe84>] irq_work_single+0x68/0x70
>>>>>>>>>> | [<ffffffff8015feb4>] irq_work_run_list+0x28/0x36
>>>>>>>>>> | [<ffffffff8015fefa>] irq_work_run+0x38/0x66
>>>>>>>>>> | [<ffffffff8000828a>] handle_IPI+0x3a/0xb4
>>>>>>>>>> | [<ffffffff800a5c3a>] handle_percpu_devid_irq+0xa4/0x1f8
>>>>>>>>>> | [<ffffffff8009fafa>] generic_handle_domain_irq+0x28/0x36
>>>>>>>>>> | [<ffffffff800ae570>] ipi_mux_process+0xac/0xfa
>>>>>>>>>> | [<ffffffff8000a8ea>] sbi_ipi_handle+0x2e/0x88
>>>>>>>>>> | [<ffffffff8009fafa>] generic_handle_domain_irq+0x28/0x36
>>>>>>>>>> | [<ffffffff807ee70e>] riscv_intc_irq+0x36/0x4e
>>>>>>>>>> | [<ffffffff812b5d3a>] handle_riscv_irq+0x54/0x86
>>>>>>>>>> | [<ffffffff812b6904>] do_irq+0x66/0x98
>>>>>>>>>> | ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]---
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Code:
>>>>>>>>>> | static void free_bulk(struct bpf_mem_cache *c)
>>>>>>>>>> | {
>>>>>>>>>> | struct bpf_mem_cache *tgt = c->tgt;
>>>>>>>>>> | struct llist_node *llnode, *t;
>>>>>>>>>> | unsigned long flags;
>>>>>>>>>> | int cnt;
>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>> | WARN_ON_ONCE(tgt->unit_size != c->unit_size);
>>>>>>>>>> | ...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm not well versed in the memory allocator; Before I dive into
>>>>>>>>>> it --
>>>>>>>>>> has anyone else hit it? Ideas on why the warn_on_once is hit?
>>>>>>>>> Maybe take a look at the patch
>>>>>>>>> 822fb26bdb55 bpf: Add a hint to allocated objects.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In the above patch, we have
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> + /*
>>>>>>>>> + * Remember bpf_mem_cache that allocated this object.
>>>>>>>>> + * The hint is not accurate.
>>>>>>>>> + */
>>>>>>>>> + c->tgt = *(struct bpf_mem_cache **)llnode;
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I suspect that the warning may be related to the above.
>>>>>>>>> I tried the above ./test_progs command line (running multiple
>>>>>>>>> at the same time) and didn't trigger the issue.
>>>>>>>> The extra 8-bytes before the freed pointer is used to save the
>>>>>>>> pointer
>>>>>>>> of the original bpf memory allocator where the freed pointer came
>>>>>>>> from,
>>>>>>>> so unit_free() could free the pointer back to the original
>>>>>>>> allocator to
>>>>>>>> prevent alloc-and-free unbalance.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I suspect that a wrong pointer was passed to bpf_obj_drop, but do
>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>> find anything suspicious after checking linked_list. Another
>>>>>>>> possibility
>>>>>>>> is that there is write-after-free problem which corrupts the extra
>>>>>>>> 8-bytes before the freed pointer. Could you please apply the
>>>>>>>> following
>>>>>>>> debug patch to check whether or not the extra 8-bytes are
>>>>>>>> corrupted ?
>>>>>>> Thanks for getting back!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I took your patch for a run, and there's a hit:
>>>>>>> | bad cache ff5ffffffffe8570: got size 96 work
>>>>>>> ffffffff801b19c8, cache ff5ffffffffe8980 exp size 128 work
>>>>>>> ffffffff801b19c8
>>>>>> The extra 8-bytes are not corrupted. Both of these two
>>>>>> bpf_mem_cache are
>>>>>> valid and there are in the cache array defined in bpf_mem_caches. BPF
>>>>>> memory allocator allocated the pointer from 96-bytes sized-cache,
>>>>>> but it
>>>>>> tried to free the pointer through 128-bytes sized-cache.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now I suspect there is no 96-bytes slab in your system and ksize(ptr -
>>>>>> LLIST_NODE_SZ) returns 128, so bpf memory allocator selected the
>>>>>> 128-byte sized-cache instead of 96-bytes sized-cache. Could you please
>>>>>> check the value of KMALLOC_MIN_SIZE in your kernel .config and
>>>>>> using the
>>>>>> following command to check whether there is 96-bytes slab in your
>>>>>> system:
>>>>> KMALLOC_MIN_SIZE is 64.
>>>>>
>>>>>> $ cat /proc/slabinfo |grep kmalloc-96
>>>>>> dma-kmalloc-96 0 0 96 42 1 : tunables 0 0
>>>>>> 0 : slabdata 0 0 0
>>>>>> kmalloc-96 1865 2268 96 42 1 : tunables 0 0
>>>>>> 0 : slabdata 54 54 0
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In my system, slab has 96-bytes cached, so grep outputs something,
>>>>>> but I
>>>>>> think there will no output in your system.
>>>>> You're right! No kmalloc-96.
>>>> To get rid of the warning, limit available sizes from
>>>> bpf_mem_alloc_init()?
>> It is not enough. We need to adjust size_index accordingly during
>> initialization. Could you please try the attached patch below ? It is
>> not a formal patch and I am considering to disable prefilling for these
>> redirected bpf_mem_caches.
>>> Do you know why your system does not have kmalloc-96?
>> According to the implementation of setup_kmalloc_cache_index_table() and
>> create_kmalloc_caches(), when KMALLOC_MIN_SIZE is greater than 64,
>> kmalloc-96 will be omitted. If KMALLOC_MIN_SIZE is greater than 128,
>> kmalloc-192 will be omitted as well.
> Great catch. The fix looks good.
> Please submit it officially and add an error check to bpf_mem_alloc_init()
> that verifies that ksize() matches the expectations.
Do you mean to check the return values of ksize() for these prefill
objects in free_llist are expected, right ?
> The alternative is to use kmalloc_size_roundup() during alloc for
> checking instead of ksize().
> Technically we can use kmalloc_size_roundup in unit_alloc() and avoid
> setup_kmalloc_cache_index_table()-like copy paste, but performance
> overhead might be too high.
> So your patch + error check at bpf_mem_alloc_init() is preferred.
I see. Using kmalloc_size_round() in bpf_mem_alloc() is indeed an
alternative solution. Will post it.
