On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 01:34:33PM -0400, Rafael Aquini wrote: > On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 01:27:04PM +0200, Uladzislau Rezki wrote: > > > On non-preemptible kernel builds the watchdog can complain > > > about soft lockups when vfree() is called against large > > > vmalloc areas: > > > > > > [ 210.851798] kvmalloc-test: vmalloc(2199023255552) succeeded > > > [ 238.654842] watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#181 stuck for 26s! [rmmod:5203] > > > [ 238.662716] Modules linked in: kvmalloc_test(OE-) ... > > > [ 238.772671] CPU: 181 PID: 5203 Comm: rmmod Tainted: G S OE 5.13.0-rc7+ #1 > > > [ 238.781413] Hardware name: Intel Corporation PURLEY/PURLEY, BIOS PLYXCRB1.86B.0553.D01.1809190614 09/19/2018 > > > [ 238.792383] RIP: 0010:free_unref_page+0x52/0x60 > > > [ 238.797447] Code: 48 c1 fd 06 48 89 ee e8 9c d0 ff ff 84 c0 74 19 9c 41 5c fa 48 89 ee 48 89 df e8 b9 ea ff ff 41 f7 c4 00 02 00 00 74 01 fb 5b <5d> 41 5c c3 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 00 00 00 0f 1f 44 00 00 f0 29 77 > > > [ 238.818406] RSP: 0018:ffffb4d87868fe98 EFLAGS: 00000206 > > > [ 238.824236] RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: 000000001da0c945 RCX: ffffb4d87868fe40 > > > [ 238.832200] RDX: ffffd79d3beed108 RSI: ffffd7998501dc08 RDI: ffff9c6fbffd7010 > > > [ 238.840166] RBP: 000000000d518cbd R08: ffffd7998501dc08 R09: 0000000000000001 > > > [ 238.848131] R10: 0000000000000000 R11: ffffd79d3beee088 R12: 0000000000000202 > > > [ 238.856095] R13: ffff9e5be3eceec0 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: 0000000000000000 > > > [ 238.864059] FS: 00007fe082c2d740(0000) GS:ffff9f4c69b40000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 > > > [ 238.873089] CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 > > > [ 238.879503] CR2: 000055a000611128 CR3: 000000f6094f6006 CR4: 00000000007706e0 > > > [ 238.887467] DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000 > > > [ 238.895433] DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400 > > > [ 238.903397] PKRU: 55555554 > > > [ 238.906417] Call Trace: > > > [ 238.909149] __vunmap+0x17c/0x220 > > > [ 238.912851] __x64_sys_delete_module+0x13a/0x250 > > > [ 238.918008] ? syscall_trace_enter.isra.20+0x13c/0x1b0 > > > [ 238.923746] do_syscall_64+0x39/0x80 > > > [ 238.927740] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae > > > > > > Like in other range zapping routines that iterate over > > > a large list, lets just add cond_resched() within __vunmap()'s > > > page-releasing loop in order to avoid the watchdog splats. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Rafael Aquini <aquini@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > mm/vmalloc.c | 1 + > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c > > > index a13ac524f6ff..cd4b23d65748 100644 > > > --- a/mm/vmalloc.c > > > +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c > > > @@ -2564,6 +2564,7 @@ static void __vunmap(const void *addr, int deallocate_pages) > > > > > > BUG_ON(!page); > > > __free_pages(page, page_order); > > > + cond_resched(); > > > } > > > atomic_long_sub(area->nr_pages, &nr_vmalloc_pages); > > > > > > -- > > > 2.26.3 > > > > > I have a question about a test case you run to trigger such soft lockup. > > > > Is that test_vmalloc.sh test-suite or something local? Do you use a huge > > vmalloc mappings so high-order pages are used? > > > > Vlad, > > It's a variant of the simple testcase presented with Kernel Bug 210023: > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=210023#c7 > OK, now i see how you get ~23 seconds soft lockup :) Reviewed-by: Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) <urezki@xxxxxxxxx> Thanks! -- Vlad Rezki
