The patch titled
Subject: mm: memory-failure: use rcu lock instead of tasklist_lock when collect_procs()
has been added to the -mm mm-unstable branch. Its filename is
mm-memory-failure-use-rcu-lock-instead-of-tasklist_lock-when-collect_procs.patch
This patch will shortly appear at
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/25-new.git/tree/patches/mm-memory-failure-use-rcu-lock-instead-of-tasklist_lock-when-collect_procs.patch
This patch will later appear in the mm-unstable branch at
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/mm
Before you just go and hit "reply", please:
a) Consider who else should be cc'ed
b) Prefer to cc a suitable mailing list as well
c) Ideally: find the original patch on the mailing list and do a
reply-to-all to that, adding suitable additional cc's
*** Remember to use Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst when testing your code ***
The -mm tree is included into linux-next via the mm-everything
branch at git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/mm
and is updated there every 2-3 working days
------------------------------------------------------
From: Tong Tiangen <tongtiangen@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: mm: memory-failure: use rcu lock instead of tasklist_lock when collect_procs()
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2023 17:13:12 +0800
We found a softlock issue in our test, analyzed the logs, and found that
the relevant CPU call trace as follows:
CPU0:
_do_fork
-> copy_process()
-> write_lock_irq(&tasklist_lock) //Disable irq,waiting for
//tasklist_lock
CPU1:
wp_page_copy()
->pte_offset_map_lock()
-> spin_lock(&page->ptl); //Hold page->ptl
-> ptep_clear_flush()
-> flush_tlb_others() ...
-> smp_call_function_many()
-> arch_send_call_function_ipi_mask()
-> csd_lock_wait() //Waiting for other CPUs respond
//IPI
CPU2:
collect_procs_anon()
-> read_lock(&tasklist_lock) //Hold tasklist_lock
->for_each_process(tsk)
-> page_mapped_in_vma()
-> page_vma_mapped_walk()
-> map_pte()
->spin_lock(&page->ptl) //Waiting for page->ptl
We can see that CPU1 waiting for CPU0 respond IPIï¼?CPU0 waiting for CPU2
unlock tasklist_lock, CPU2 waiting for CPU1 unlock page->ptl. As a result,
softlockup is triggered.
For collect_procs_anon(), we will not modify the tasklist, but only perform
read traversal. Therefore, we can use rcu lock instead of spin lock
tasklist_lock, from this, we can break the softlock chain above.
The same logic can also be applied to:
- collect_procs_file()
- collect_procs_fsdax()
- collect_procs_ksm()
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20230821091312.2034844-1-tongtiangen@xxxxxxxxxx
Signed-off-by: Tong Tiangen <tongtiangen@xxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@xxxxxxx>
Cc: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
mm/filemap.c | 3 ---
mm/ksm.c | 4 ++--
mm/memory-failure.c | 16 ++++++++--------
3 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
--- a/mm/filemap.c~mm-memory-failure-use-rcu-lock-instead-of-tasklist_lock-when-collect_procs
+++ a/mm/filemap.c
@@ -121,9 +121,6 @@
* bdi.wb->list_lock (zap_pte_range->set_page_dirty)
* ->inode->i_lock (zap_pte_range->set_page_dirty)
* ->private_lock (zap_pte_range->block_dirty_folio)
- *
- * ->i_mmap_rwsem
- * ->tasklist_lock (memory_failure, collect_procs_ao)
*/
static void page_cache_delete(struct address_space *mapping,
--- a/mm/ksm.c~mm-memory-failure-use-rcu-lock-instead-of-tasklist_lock-when-collect_procs
+++ a/mm/ksm.c
@@ -2925,7 +2925,7 @@ void collect_procs_ksm(struct page *page
struct anon_vma *av = rmap_item->anon_vma;
anon_vma_lock_read(av);
- read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
+ rcu_read_lock();
for_each_process(tsk) {
struct anon_vma_chain *vmac;
unsigned long addr;
@@ -2944,7 +2944,7 @@ void collect_procs_ksm(struct page *page
}
}
}
- read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
+ rcu_read_unlock();
anon_vma_unlock_read(av);
}
}
--- a/mm/memory-failure.c~mm-memory-failure-use-rcu-lock-instead-of-tasklist_lock-when-collect_procs
+++ a/mm/memory-failure.c
@@ -547,8 +547,8 @@ static void kill_procs(struct list_head
* on behalf of the thread group. Return task_struct of the (first found)
* dedicated thread if found, and return NULL otherwise.
*
- * We already hold read_lock(&tasklist_lock) in the caller, so we don't
- * have to call rcu_read_lock/unlock() in this function.
+ * We already hold rcu lock in the caller, so we don't have to call
+ * rcu_read_lock/unlock() in this function.
*/
static struct task_struct *find_early_kill_thread(struct task_struct *tsk)
{
@@ -609,7 +609,7 @@ static void collect_procs_anon(struct pa
return;
pgoff = page_to_pgoff(page);
- read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
+ rcu_read_lock();
for_each_process(tsk) {
struct anon_vma_chain *vmac;
struct task_struct *t = task_early_kill(tsk, force_early);
@@ -626,7 +626,7 @@ static void collect_procs_anon(struct pa
add_to_kill_anon_file(t, page, vma, to_kill);
}
}
- read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
+ rcu_read_unlock();
anon_vma_unlock_read(av);
}
@@ -642,7 +642,7 @@ static void collect_procs_file(struct pa
pgoff_t pgoff;
i_mmap_lock_read(mapping);
- read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
+ rcu_read_lock();
pgoff = page_to_pgoff(page);
for_each_process(tsk) {
struct task_struct *t = task_early_kill(tsk, force_early);
@@ -662,7 +662,7 @@ static void collect_procs_file(struct pa
add_to_kill_anon_file(t, page, vma, to_kill);
}
}
- read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
+ rcu_read_unlock();
i_mmap_unlock_read(mapping);
}
@@ -685,7 +685,7 @@ static void collect_procs_fsdax(struct p
struct task_struct *tsk;
i_mmap_lock_read(mapping);
- read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
+ rcu_read_lock();
for_each_process(tsk) {
struct task_struct *t = task_early_kill(tsk, true);
@@ -696,7 +696,7 @@ static void collect_procs_fsdax(struct p
add_to_kill_fsdax(t, page, vma, to_kill, pgoff);
}
}
- read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
+ rcu_read_unlock();
i_mmap_unlock_read(mapping);
}
#endif /* CONFIG_FS_DAX */
_
Patches currently in -mm which might be from tongtiangen@xxxxxxxxxx are
mm-memory-failure-use-rcu-lock-instead-of-tasklist_lock-when-collect_procs.patch
