* [zswap?] BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/cgroup/rstat.c:421
@ 2026-06-10 16:05 Zenghui Yu
2026-06-10 16:38 ` Nhat Pham
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Zenghui Yu @ 2026-06-10 16:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-mm; +Cc: hannes, yosry, nphamcs, chengming.zhou
Hi all,
The following splat was triggered on the mainline kernel:
BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/cgroup/rstat.c:421
in_atomic(): 0, irqs_disabled(): 0, non_block: 0, pid: 1126, name: cat
preempt_count: 0, expected: 0
RCU nest depth: 1, expected: 0
CPU: 7 UID: 0 PID: 1126 Comm: cat Kdump: loaded Not tainted 7.1.0-rc7-00056-gacb7500801e9-dirty #304 PREEMPT
Hardware name: QEMU QEMU Virtual Machine, BIOS edk2-stable202408-prebuilt.qemu.org 08/13/2024
Call trace:
show_stack+0x18/0x24 (C)
dump_stack_lvl+0x78/0x90
dump_stack+0x18/0x24
__might_resched+0x114/0x170
__might_sleep+0x48/0x98
css_rstat_flush+0x54/0x564
mem_cgroup_flush_stats+0x9c/0xb0
zswap_shrinker_count+0xe4/0x1e4
shrinker_debugfs_count_show+0xd8/0x268
seq_read_iter+0x1b8/0x4ac
seq_read+0xe0/0x11c
full_proxy_read+0x6c/0xa8
vfs_read+0xc0/0x2fc
ksys_read+0x68/0xfc
__arm64_sys_read+0x1c/0x28
invoke_syscall+0x54/0x110
el0_svc_common.constprop.0+0x40/0xe0
do_el0_svc+0x1c/0x28
el0_svc+0x38/0x128
el0t_64_sync_handler+0xa0/0xe4
el0t_64_sync+0x198/0x19c
The kernel is built with arm64's virt.config plus
+CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP=y
+CONFIG_SHRINKER_DEBUG=y
+CONFIG_ZSWAP=y
I can reproduce the issue with the following steps:
$ echo Y > /sys/module/zswap/parameters/enabled
$ echo Y > /sys/module/zswap/parameters/shrinker_enabled
$ cat /sys/kernel/debug/shrinker/mm-zswap-60/count
Please have a look.
Thanks,
Zenghui
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* Re: [zswap?] BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/cgroup/rstat.c:421 2026-06-10 16:05 [zswap?] BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/cgroup/rstat.c:421 Zenghui Yu @ 2026-06-10 16:38 ` Nhat Pham 2026-06-10 16:47 ` Nhat Pham 2026-06-10 17:31 ` Shakeel Butt 0 siblings, 2 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Nhat Pham @ 2026-06-10 16:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Zenghui Yu; +Cc: linux-mm, hannes, yosry, chengming.zhou, Shakeel Butt On Wed, Jun 10, 2026 at 9:05 AM Zenghui Yu <zenghui.yu@linux.dev> wrote: Thanks for reporting, Zenghui. > > Hi all, > > The following splat was triggered on the mainline kernel: > > BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/cgroup/rstat.c:421 > in_atomic(): 0, irqs_disabled(): 0, non_block: 0, pid: 1126, name: cat > preempt_count: 0, expected: 0 > RCU nest depth: 1, expected: 0 > CPU: 7 UID: 0 PID: 1126 Comm: cat Kdump: loaded Not tainted 7.1.0-rc7-00056-gacb7500801e9-dirty #304 PREEMPT > Hardware name: QEMU QEMU Virtual Machine, BIOS edk2-stable202408-prebuilt.qemu.org 08/13/2024 > Call trace: > show_stack+0x18/0x24 (C) > dump_stack_lvl+0x78/0x90 > dump_stack+0x18/0x24 > __might_resched+0x114/0x170 > __might_sleep+0x48/0x98 > css_rstat_flush+0x54/0x564 > mem_cgroup_flush_stats+0x9c/0xb0 > zswap_shrinker_count+0xe4/0x1e4 > shrinker_debugfs_count_show+0xd8/0x268 Ah, this seems a bit tricky. Seems like shrinker_debugfs_count_show() is invoking zswap_shrinker_count() in rcu_read_section(). zswap_shrinker_count() triggers a stats flushing, which might sleep. Not ideal. Is the rcu_read_section() here to protect memcg or shrinker? For memcg, i dont think it's necessary, no? mem_cgroup_iter() pins the memcg before returning. (memcg maintainers please fact check me). If this is for the shrinker think this needs to follow shrink_slab()'s pattern.: rcu_read_lock(); list_for_each_entry_rcu(shrinker, &shrinker_list, list) { if (!shrinker_try_get(shrinker)) continue; rcu_read_unlock(); } But OTOH, doesn't seem like rcu_read_section() is what keeping it safe: rcu_read_lock(); memcg_aware = shrinker->flags & SHRINKER_MEMCG_AWARE; We get the shrinker reference outside of the rcu_read_section(), and just dereference it without any checking inside of the section. I think we can just remove the rcu_read_(un)lock() here? Long term, I still think we'd be better off getting rid of this stats flushing. Seems expensive either way. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [zswap?] BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/cgroup/rstat.c:421 2026-06-10 16:38 ` Nhat Pham @ 2026-06-10 16:47 ` Nhat Pham 2026-06-10 16:48 ` Nhat Pham 2026-06-10 17:31 ` Shakeel Butt 1 sibling, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Nhat Pham @ 2026-06-10 16:47 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Zenghui Yu; +Cc: linux-mm, hannes, yosry, chengming.zhou, Shakeel Butt On Wed, Jun 10, 2026 at 9:38 AM Nhat Pham <nphamcs@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2026 at 9:05 AM Zenghui Yu <zenghui.yu@linux.dev> wrote: > > Thanks for reporting, Zenghui. > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > The following splat was triggered on the mainline kernel: > > > > BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/cgroup/rstat.c:421 > > in_atomic(): 0, irqs_disabled(): 0, non_block: 0, pid: 1126, name: cat > > preempt_count: 0, expected: 0 > > RCU nest depth: 1, expected: 0 > > CPU: 7 UID: 0 PID: 1126 Comm: cat Kdump: loaded Not tainted 7.1.0-rc7-00056-gacb7500801e9-dirty #304 PREEMPT > > Hardware name: QEMU QEMU Virtual Machine, BIOS edk2-stable202408-prebuilt.qemu.org 08/13/2024 > > Call trace: > > show_stack+0x18/0x24 (C) > > dump_stack_lvl+0x78/0x90 > > dump_stack+0x18/0x24 > > __might_resched+0x114/0x170 > > __might_sleep+0x48/0x98 > > css_rstat_flush+0x54/0x564 > > mem_cgroup_flush_stats+0x9c/0xb0 > > zswap_shrinker_count+0xe4/0x1e4 > > shrinker_debugfs_count_show+0xd8/0x268 > > Ah, this seems a bit tricky. > > Seems like shrinker_debugfs_count_show() is invoking > zswap_shrinker_count() in rcu_read_section(). zswap_shrinker_count() > triggers a stats flushing, which might sleep. Not ideal. > > Is the rcu_read_section() here to protect memcg or shrinker? For > memcg, i dont think it's necessary, no? mem_cgroup_iter() pins the > memcg before returning. > > (memcg maintainers please fact check me). > > If this is for the shrinker think this needs to follow shrink_slab()'s pattern.: > > rcu_read_lock(); > list_for_each_entry_rcu(shrinker, &shrinker_list, list) > { > if (!shrinker_try_get(shrinker)) > continue; > rcu_read_unlock(); > } > > But OTOH, doesn't seem like rcu_read_section() is what keeping it safe: > > rcu_read_lock(); > memcg_aware = shrinker->flags & SHRINKER_MEMCG_AWARE; > > We get the shrinker reference outside of the rcu_read_section(), and > just dereference it without any checking inside of the section. > > I think we can just remove the rcu_read_(un)lock() here? > Also, looking at the code a bit closer - if (!shrinker->flags & SHRINKER_MEMCG_AWARE), we shouldn't be getting into this loop at all and inducing all the memcg-related overhead at all... The code really should be structure as: if (shrinker->flags & SHRINKER_MEMCG_AWARE) { total = shrinker_count_objects(shrinker, NULL, count_per_node); if (total) ... } else { memcg = mem_cgroup_iter(NULL, NULL, NULL); do { } while ((memcg = mem_cgroup_iter(NULL, memcg, NULL)) != NULL); } ... ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [zswap?] BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/cgroup/rstat.c:421 2026-06-10 16:47 ` Nhat Pham @ 2026-06-10 16:48 ` Nhat Pham 0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Nhat Pham @ 2026-06-10 16:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Zenghui Yu; +Cc: linux-mm, hannes, yosry, chengming.zhou, Shakeel Butt On Wed, Jun 10, 2026 at 9:47 AM Nhat Pham <nphamcs@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Also, looking at the code a bit closer - if (!shrinker->flags & > SHRINKER_MEMCG_AWARE), we shouldn't be getting into this loop at all > and inducing all the memcg-related overhead at all... > > The code really should be structure as: > > if (shrinker->flags & SHRINKER_MEMCG_AWARE) { As usual, i flip the conditionals :( But you get the idea... ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [zswap?] BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/cgroup/rstat.c:421 2026-06-10 16:38 ` Nhat Pham 2026-06-10 16:47 ` Nhat Pham @ 2026-06-10 17:31 ` Shakeel Butt 2026-06-10 18:38 ` Nhat Pham 1 sibling, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Shakeel Butt @ 2026-06-10 17:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Nhat Pham Cc: Zenghui Yu, linux-mm, hannes, yosry, chengming.zhou, roman.gushchin, qi.zheng +Roman, Qi On Wed, Jun 10, 2026 at 09:38:03AM -0700, Nhat Pham wrote: > On Wed, Jun 10, 2026 at 9:05 AM Zenghui Yu <zenghui.yu@linux.dev> wrote: > > Thanks for reporting, Zenghui. > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > The following splat was triggered on the mainline kernel: > > > > BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/cgroup/rstat.c:421 > > in_atomic(): 0, irqs_disabled(): 0, non_block: 0, pid: 1126, name: cat > > preempt_count: 0, expected: 0 > > RCU nest depth: 1, expected: 0 > > CPU: 7 UID: 0 PID: 1126 Comm: cat Kdump: loaded Not tainted 7.1.0-rc7-00056-gacb7500801e9-dirty #304 PREEMPT > > Hardware name: QEMU QEMU Virtual Machine, BIOS edk2-stable202408-prebuilt.qemu.org 08/13/2024 > > Call trace: > > show_stack+0x18/0x24 (C) > > dump_stack_lvl+0x78/0x90 > > dump_stack+0x18/0x24 > > __might_resched+0x114/0x170 > > __might_sleep+0x48/0x98 > > css_rstat_flush+0x54/0x564 > > mem_cgroup_flush_stats+0x9c/0xb0 > > zswap_shrinker_count+0xe4/0x1e4 > > shrinker_debugfs_count_show+0xd8/0x268 > > Ah, this seems a bit tricky. > > Seems like shrinker_debugfs_count_show() is invoking > zswap_shrinker_count() in rcu_read_section(). zswap_shrinker_count() > triggers a stats flushing, which might sleep. Not ideal. > > Is the rcu_read_section() here to protect memcg or shrinker? For > memcg, i dont think it's necessary, no? mem_cgroup_iter() pins the > memcg before returning. > > (memcg maintainers please fact check me). mem_cgroup_iter() handles the lifetime of memcg, so there is no need for rcu read section for memcg. > > If this is for the shrinker think this needs to follow shrink_slab()'s pattern.: > > rcu_read_lock(); > list_for_each_entry_rcu(shrinker, &shrinker_list, list) > { > if (!shrinker_try_get(shrinker)) > continue; > rcu_read_unlock(); > } > > But OTOH, doesn't seem like rcu_read_section() is what keeping it safe: Shouldn't the caller already holds the reference to the shrinker which it is giving to this function? Does debugfs file entry holds a reference to the shrinker which it is giving. After looking at shrinker_free(), it has call_rcu(&shrinker->rcu, shrinker_free_rcu_cb), so this rcu read section is against that. I think we can simply use shrinker_try_get() here as Nhat said. > > rcu_read_lock(); > memcg_aware = shrinker->flags & SHRINKER_MEMCG_AWARE; > > We get the shrinker reference outside of the rcu_read_section(), and > just dereference it without any checking inside of the section. > > I think we can just remove the rcu_read_(un)lock() here? > > Long term, I still think we'd be better off getting rid of this stats > flushing. Seems expensive either way. > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [zswap?] BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/cgroup/rstat.c:421 2026-06-10 17:31 ` Shakeel Butt @ 2026-06-10 18:38 ` Nhat Pham 2026-06-10 22:08 ` Shakeel Butt 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Nhat Pham @ 2026-06-10 18:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Shakeel Butt Cc: Zenghui Yu, linux-mm, hannes, yosry, chengming.zhou, roman.gushchin, qi.zheng On Wed, Jun 10, 2026 at 10:31 AM Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@linux.dev> wrote: > > +Roman, Qi > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2026 at 09:38:03AM -0700, Nhat Pham wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2026 at 9:05 AM Zenghui Yu <zenghui.yu@linux.dev> wrote: > > > > Thanks for reporting, Zenghui. > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > The following splat was triggered on the mainline kernel: > > > > > > BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/cgroup/rstat.c:421 > > > in_atomic(): 0, irqs_disabled(): 0, non_block: 0, pid: 1126, name: cat > > > preempt_count: 0, expected: 0 > > > RCU nest depth: 1, expected: 0 > > > CPU: 7 UID: 0 PID: 1126 Comm: cat Kdump: loaded Not tainted 7.1.0-rc7-00056-gacb7500801e9-dirty #304 PREEMPT > > > Hardware name: QEMU QEMU Virtual Machine, BIOS edk2-stable202408-prebuilt.qemu.org 08/13/2024 > > > Call trace: > > > show_stack+0x18/0x24 (C) > > > dump_stack_lvl+0x78/0x90 > > > dump_stack+0x18/0x24 > > > __might_resched+0x114/0x170 > > > __might_sleep+0x48/0x98 > > > css_rstat_flush+0x54/0x564 > > > mem_cgroup_flush_stats+0x9c/0xb0 > > > zswap_shrinker_count+0xe4/0x1e4 > > > shrinker_debugfs_count_show+0xd8/0x268 > > > > Ah, this seems a bit tricky. > > > > Seems like shrinker_debugfs_count_show() is invoking > > zswap_shrinker_count() in rcu_read_section(). zswap_shrinker_count() > > triggers a stats flushing, which might sleep. Not ideal. > > > > Is the rcu_read_section() here to protect memcg or shrinker? For > > memcg, i dont think it's necessary, no? mem_cgroup_iter() pins the > > memcg before returning. > > > > (memcg maintainers please fact check me). > > mem_cgroup_iter() handles the lifetime of memcg, so there is no need for rcu > read section for memcg. > > > > > If this is for the shrinker think this needs to follow shrink_slab()'s pattern.: > > > > rcu_read_lock(); > > list_for_each_entry_rcu(shrinker, &shrinker_list, list) > > { > > if (!shrinker_try_get(shrinker)) > > continue; > > rcu_read_unlock(); > > } > > > > But OTOH, doesn't seem like rcu_read_section() is what keeping it safe: > > Shouldn't the caller already holds the reference to the shrinker which it is > giving to this function? Does debugfs file entry holds a reference to the > shrinker which it is giving. > > After looking at shrinker_free(), it has call_rcu(&shrinker->rcu, > shrinker_free_rcu_cb), so this rcu read section is against that. > > I think we can simply use shrinker_try_get() here as Nhat said. Hmm, so is this unsafe even with the current rcu shennanigans? What's stopping shrinker to be freed by that callback before we enter rcu_read_section()? Seems like this is just implicitly correct - shrinker_debugfs_detach() and shrinker_debugfs_remove() happens before call_rcu(&shrinker->rcu, shrinker_free_rcu_cb);, so if you're reading this file, then it's before shrinker_free_rcu_cb() is even registered? Do we still need rcu or shrinker_try_get() here? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [zswap?] BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/cgroup/rstat.c:421 2026-06-10 18:38 ` Nhat Pham @ 2026-06-10 22:08 ` Shakeel Butt 0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Shakeel Butt @ 2026-06-10 22:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Nhat Pham Cc: Zenghui Yu, linux-mm, hannes, yosry, chengming.zhou, roman.gushchin, qi.zheng On Wed, Jun 10, 2026 at 11:38:29AM -0700, Nhat Pham wrote: > On Wed, Jun 10, 2026 at 10:31 AM Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@linux.dev> wrote: > > > > +Roman, Qi > > > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2026 at 09:38:03AM -0700, Nhat Pham wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2026 at 9:05 AM Zenghui Yu <zenghui.yu@linux.dev> wrote: > > > > > > Thanks for reporting, Zenghui. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > The following splat was triggered on the mainline kernel: > > > > > > > > BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/cgroup/rstat.c:421 > > > > in_atomic(): 0, irqs_disabled(): 0, non_block: 0, pid: 1126, name: cat > > > > preempt_count: 0, expected: 0 > > > > RCU nest depth: 1, expected: 0 > > > > CPU: 7 UID: 0 PID: 1126 Comm: cat Kdump: loaded Not tainted 7.1.0-rc7-00056-gacb7500801e9-dirty #304 PREEMPT > > > > Hardware name: QEMU QEMU Virtual Machine, BIOS edk2-stable202408-prebuilt.qemu.org 08/13/2024 > > > > Call trace: > > > > show_stack+0x18/0x24 (C) > > > > dump_stack_lvl+0x78/0x90 > > > > dump_stack+0x18/0x24 > > > > __might_resched+0x114/0x170 > > > > __might_sleep+0x48/0x98 > > > > css_rstat_flush+0x54/0x564 > > > > mem_cgroup_flush_stats+0x9c/0xb0 > > > > zswap_shrinker_count+0xe4/0x1e4 > > > > shrinker_debugfs_count_show+0xd8/0x268 > > > > > > Ah, this seems a bit tricky. > > > > > > Seems like shrinker_debugfs_count_show() is invoking > > > zswap_shrinker_count() in rcu_read_section(). zswap_shrinker_count() > > > triggers a stats flushing, which might sleep. Not ideal. > > > > > > Is the rcu_read_section() here to protect memcg or shrinker? For > > > memcg, i dont think it's necessary, no? mem_cgroup_iter() pins the > > > memcg before returning. > > > > > > (memcg maintainers please fact check me). > > > > mem_cgroup_iter() handles the lifetime of memcg, so there is no need for rcu > > read section for memcg. > > > > > > > > If this is for the shrinker think this needs to follow shrink_slab()'s pattern.: > > > > > > rcu_read_lock(); > > > list_for_each_entry_rcu(shrinker, &shrinker_list, list) > > > { > > > if (!shrinker_try_get(shrinker)) > > > continue; > > > rcu_read_unlock(); > > > } > > > > > > But OTOH, doesn't seem like rcu_read_section() is what keeping it safe: > > > > Shouldn't the caller already holds the reference to the shrinker which it is > > giving to this function? Does debugfs file entry holds a reference to the > > shrinker which it is giving. > > > > After looking at shrinker_free(), it has call_rcu(&shrinker->rcu, > > shrinker_free_rcu_cb), so this rcu read section is against that. > > > > I think we can simply use shrinker_try_get() here as Nhat said. > > Hmm, so is this unsafe even with the current rcu shennanigans? What's > stopping shrinker to be freed by that callback before we enter > rcu_read_section()? > > Seems like this is just implicitly correct - shrinker_debugfs_detach() > and shrinker_debugfs_remove() happens before call_rcu(&shrinker->rcu, > shrinker_free_rcu_cb);, so if you're reading this file, then it's > before shrinker_free_rcu_cb() is even registered? > > Do we still need rcu or shrinker_try_get() here? I think you are right that we don't need rcu or shrinker_try_get() but it is more about an active debugfs file reader. Suppose we are sleeping within rstat flush from shrinker_debugfs_count_show() and there is a parallel shrinker_debugfs_remove() call. shrinker_debugfs_remove calls debugfs_remove_recursive and deep in the stack there is a call wait_for_completion(&fsd->active_users_drained) which will wait for active users, one of which is sleeping within rstat flush. So, let's simply remove rcu read here. > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2026-06-10 22:08 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2026-06-10 16:05 [zswap?] BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/cgroup/rstat.c:421 Zenghui Yu 2026-06-10 16:38 ` Nhat Pham 2026-06-10 16:47 ` Nhat Pham 2026-06-10 16:48 ` Nhat Pham 2026-06-10 17:31 ` Shakeel Butt 2026-06-10 18:38 ` Nhat Pham 2026-06-10 22:08 ` Shakeel Butt
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.