Re: [PATCH v2] blk-cgroup: Use cond_resched() when destroy blkgs

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 





在 2021/1/28 11:41, Jens Axboe 写道:
On 1/27/21 8:22 PM, Baolin Wang wrote:
On !PREEMPT kernel, we can get below softlockup when doing stress
testing with creating and destroying block cgroup repeatly. The
reason is it may take a long time to acquire the queue's lock in
the loop of blkcg_destroy_blkgs(), or the system can accumulate a
huge number of blkgs in pathological cases. We can add a need_resched()
check on each loop and release locks and do cond_resched() if true
to avoid this issue, since the blkcg_destroy_blkgs() is not called
from atomic contexts.

[ 4757.010308] watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#11 stuck for 94s!
[ 4757.010698] Call trace:
[ 4757.010700]  blkcg_destroy_blkgs+0x68/0x150
[ 4757.010701]  cgwb_release_workfn+0x104/0x158
[ 4757.010702]  process_one_work+0x1bc/0x3f0
[ 4757.010704]  worker_thread+0x164/0x468
[ 4757.010705]  kthread+0x108/0x138

Kind of ugly with the two clauses for dropping the blkcg lock, one
being a cpu_relax() and the other a resched. How about something
like this:


diff --git a/block/blk-cgroup.c b/block/blk-cgroup.c
index 031114d454a6..4221a1539391 100644
--- a/block/blk-cgroup.c
+++ b/block/blk-cgroup.c
@@ -1016,6 +1016,8 @@ static void blkcg_css_offline(struct cgroup_subsys_state *css)
   */
  void blkcg_destroy_blkgs(struct blkcg *blkcg)
  {
+	might_sleep();
+
  	spin_lock_irq(&blkcg->lock);
while (!hlist_empty(&blkcg->blkg_list)) {
@@ -1023,14 +1025,20 @@ void blkcg_destroy_blkgs(struct blkcg *blkcg)
  						struct blkcg_gq, blkcg_node);
  		struct request_queue *q = blkg->q;
- if (spin_trylock(&q->queue_lock)) {
-			blkg_destroy(blkg);
-			spin_unlock(&q->queue_lock);
-		} else {
+		if (need_resched() || !spin_trylock(&q->queue_lock)) {
+			/*
+			 * Given that the system can accumulate a huge number
+			 * of blkgs in pathological cases, check to see if we
+			 * need to rescheduling to avoid softlockup.
+			 */
  			spin_unlock_irq(&blkcg->lock);
-			cpu_relax();
+			cond_resched();
  			spin_lock_irq(&blkcg->lock);
+			continue;
  		}
+
+		blkg_destroy(blkg);
+		spin_unlock(&q->queue_lock);
  	}
spin_unlock_irq(&blkcg->lock);


Looks better to me. Do I need resend with your suggestion? Thanks.




[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]     [Monitors]

  Powered by Linux