On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 08:57:50AM +0800, Hongchen Zhang wrote:
> Hi Andrew ,
>
> On 2022/9/15 pm 5:00, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 04:02:41PM +0800, Hongchen Zhang wrote:
> > > Hi Matthew,
> > > On 2022/9/15 pm 3:28, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 09:19:48AM +0800, Hongchen Zhang wrote:
> > > > > [ 3748.453561] INFO: task float_bessel:77920 blocked for more than 120
> > > > > seconds.
> > > > > [ 3748.460839] Not tainted 5.15.0-46-generic #49-Ubuntu
> > > > > [ 3748.466490] "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables
> > > > > this message.
> > > > > [ 3748.474618] task:float_bessel state:D stack: 0 pid:77920 ppid:
> > > > > 77327 flags:0x00004002
> > > > > [ 3748.483358] Call Trace:
> > > > > [ 3748.485964] <TASK>
> > > > > [ 3748.488150] __schedule+0x23d/0x590
> > > > > [ 3748.491804] schedule+0x4e/0xc0
> > > > > [ 3748.495038] rwsem_down_read_slowpath+0x336/0x390
> > > > > [ 3748.499886] ? copy_user_enhanced_fast_string+0xe/0x40
> > > > > [ 3748.505181] down_read+0x43/0xa0
> > > > > [ 3748.508518] do_user_addr_fault+0x41c/0x670
> > > > > [ 3748.512799] exc_page_fault+0x77/0x170
> > > > > [ 3748.516673] asm_exc_page_fault+0x26/0x30
> > > > > [ 3748.520824] RIP: 0010:copy_user_enhanced_fast_string+0xe/0x40
> > > > > [ 3748.526764] Code: 89 d1 c1 e9 03 83 e2 07 f3 48 a5 89 d1 f3 a4 31 c0 0f
> > > > > 01 ca c3 cc cc cc cc 0f 1f 00 0f 01 cb 83 fa 40 0f 82 70 ff ff ff 89 d1 <f3>
> > > > > a4 31 c0 0f 01 ca c3 cc cc cc cc 66 08
> > > > > [ 3748.546120] RSP: 0018:ffffaa9248fffb90 EFLAGS: 00050206
> > > > > [ 3748.551495] RAX: 00007f99faa1a010 RBX: ffffaa9248fffd88 RCX:
> > > > > 0000000000000010
> > > > > [ 3748.558828] RDX: 0000000000001000 RSI: ffff9db397ab8ff0 RDI:
> > > > > 00007f99faa1a000
> > > > > [ 3748.566160] RBP: ffffaa9248fffbf0 R08: ffffcc2fc2965d80 R09:
> > > > > 0000000000000014
> > > > > [ 3748.573492] R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000014 R12:
> > > > > 0000000000001000
> > > > > [ 3748.580858] R13: 0000000000001000 R14: 0000000000000000 R15:
> > > > > ffffaa9248fffd98
> > > > > [ 3748.588196] ? copy_page_to_iter+0x10e/0x400
> > > > > [ 3748.592614] filemap_read+0x174/0x3e0
> > > >
> > > > Interesting; it wasn't the process itself which triggered the page
> > > > fault; the process called read() and the kernel took the page fault to
> > > > satisfy the read() call.
> > > >
> > > > > [ 3748.596354] ? ima_file_check+0x6a/0xa0
> > > > > [ 3748.600301] generic_file_read_iter+0xe5/0x150
> > > > > [ 3748.604884] ext4_file_read_iter+0x5b/0x190
> > > > > [ 3748.609164] ? aa_file_perm+0x102/0x250
> > > > > [ 3748.613125] new_sync_read+0x10d/0x1a0
> > > > > [ 3748.617009] vfs_read+0x103/0x1a0
> > > > > [ 3748.620423] ksys_read+0x67/0xf0
> > > > > [ 3748.623743] __x64_sys_read+0x19/0x20
> > > > > [ 3748.627511] do_syscall_64+0x59/0xc0
> > > > > [ 3748.631203] ? syscall_exit_to_user_mode+0x27/0x50
> > > > > [ 3748.636144] ? do_syscall_64+0x69/0xc0
> > > > > [ 3748.639992] ? exit_to_user_mode_prepare+0x96/0xb0
> > > > > [ 3748.644931] ? irqentry_exit_to_user_mode+0x9/0x20
> > > > > [ 3748.649872] ? irqentry_exit+0x1d/0x30
> > > > > [ 3748.653737] ? exc_page_fault+0x89/0x170
> > > > > [ 3748.657795] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x61/0xcb
> > > > > [ 3748.663030] RIP: 0033:0x7f9a852989cc
> > > > > [ 3748.666713] RSP: 002b:00007f9a8497dc90 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX:
> > > > > 0000000000000000
> > > > > [ 3748.674487] RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 00007f9a8497f5c0 RCX:
> > > > > 00007f9a852989cc
> > > > > [ 3748.681817] RDX: 0000000000027100 RSI: 00007f99faa18010 RDI:
> > > > > 0000000000000061
> > > > > [ 3748.689150] RBP: 00007f9a8497dd60 R08: 0000000000000000 R09:
> > > > > 00007f99faa18010
> > > > > [ 3748.696493] R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000246 R12:
> > > > > 00007f99faa18010
> > > > > [ 3748.703841] R13: 00005605e11c406f R14: 0000000000000001 R15:
> > > > > 0000000000027100
> > > >
> > > > ORIG_RAX is 0, which matches sys_read.
> > > > RDI is file descriptor 0x61
> > > > RSI is plausibly a userspace pointer, 0x7f99faa18010
> > > > RDX is the length, 0x27100 or 160kB.
> > > >
> > > > That all seems reasonable.
> > > >
> > > > What I really want to know is who is _holding_ the lock. We stash
> > > > a pointer to the task_struct in 'owner', so we could clearly find this
> > > > out in the 'blocked for too long' report, and print their stack trace.
> > > >
> > > As described in the comment for __rwsem_set_reader_owned,it is hard to track
> > > read owners.So we could not clearly find out who blocked the process,it was
> > > caused by multiple tasks.
> >
> > Readers don't block readers. You have a reader here, so it's being
> > blocked by a writer. And that writer's task_struct is stashed in
> > rwsem->owner. It would be nice if we dumped that information
> > automatically ... but we don't do that today. Perhaps you could
> > grab that information from a crash dump if you have one.
> >
> > > > You must have done something like this already in order to deduce that
> > > > it was the direct reclaim path that was the problem?
> > > >
> > > The method we used is to track the direct reclaim using the
> > > trace_mm_vmscan_direct_reclaim_{begin,end} interface.When the problem
> > > occurred,we could get a very large "nr_reclaimed" which is not a desirable
> > > value for process except kswapd.
> >
> > I disagree. If a process needs to allocate memory then it should be
> > paying the cost of reclaiming that memory itself. kswapd is a last
> > resort to reclaim memory when we have a workload (eg a network router)
> > that does its memory allocation primarily in interrupt context.
> >
> What's your opinion about this scan adjust issue? Is there a better way to
> fix this issue?
Yes, but we need you to gather more information about what's causing
the issue before we can suggest what that is.
