BPF List
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peilin Ye <yepeilin@google.com>
To: bpf@vger.kernel.org, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
	 Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@linux.dev>
Cc: Peilin Ye <yepeilin@google.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
	 Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
	 Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
	Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>,
	 Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>, Song Liu <song@kernel.org>,
	 Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>,
	John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
	 KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>,
	Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@fomichev.me>, Hao Luo <haoluo@google.com>,
	 Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>,
	Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>,
	Josh Don <joshdon@google.com>,  Barret Rhoden <brho@google.com>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: [PATCH bpf] bpf/helpers: Use __GFP_HIGH instead of GFP_ATOMIC in __bpf_async_init()
Date: Fri,  5 Sep 2025 23:45:46 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250905234547.862249-1-yepeilin@google.com> (raw)

Currently, calling bpf_map_kmalloc_node() from __bpf_async_init() can
cause various locking issues; see the following stack trace (edited for
style) as one example:

...
 [10.011566]  do_raw_spin_lock.cold
 [10.011570]  try_to_wake_up             (5) double-acquiring the same
 [10.011575]  kick_pool                      rq_lock, causing a hardlockup
 [10.011579]  __queue_work
 [10.011582]  queue_work_on
 [10.011585]  kernfs_notify
 [10.011589]  cgroup_file_notify
 [10.011593]  try_charge_memcg           (4) memcg accounting raises an
 [10.011597]  obj_cgroup_charge_pages        MEMCG_MAX event
 [10.011599]  obj_cgroup_charge_account
 [10.011600]  __memcg_slab_post_alloc_hook
 [10.011603]  __kmalloc_node_noprof
...
 [10.011611]  bpf_map_kmalloc_node
 [10.011612]  __bpf_async_init
 [10.011615]  bpf_timer_init             (3) BPF calls bpf_timer_init()
 [10.011617]  bpf_prog_xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx_fcg_runnable
 [10.011619]  bpf__sched_ext_ops_runnable
 [10.011620]  enqueue_task_scx           (2) BPF runs with rq_lock held
 [10.011622]  enqueue_task
 [10.011626]  ttwu_do_activate
 [10.011629]  sched_ttwu_pending         (1) grabs rq_lock
...

The above was reproduced on bpf-next (b338cf849ec8) by modifying
./tools/sched_ext/scx_flatcg.bpf.c to call bpf_timer_init() during
ops.runnable(), and hacking [1] the memcg accounting code a bit to make
a bpf_timer_init() call much more likely to raise an MEMCG_MAX event.

We have also run into other similar variants (both internally and on
bpf-next), including double-acquiring cgroup_file_kn_lock, the same
worker_pool::lock, etc.

As suggested by Shakeel, fix this by using __GFP_HIGH instead of
GFP_ATOMIC in __bpf_async_init(), so that if try_charge_memcg() raises
an MEMCG_MAX event, we call __memcg_memory_event() with
@allow_spinning=false and skip calling cgroup_file_notify(), in order to
avoid the locking issues described above.

Depends on mm patch "memcg: skip cgroup_file_notify if spinning is not
allowed".  Tested with vmtest.sh (llvm-18, x86-64):

 $ ./test_progs -a '*timer*' -a '*wq*'
...
 Summary: 7/12 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED

[1] Making bpf_timer_init() much more likely to raise an MEMCG_MAX event
(gist-only, for brevity):

kernel/bpf/helpers.c:__bpf_async_init():
 -        cb = bpf_map_kmalloc_node(map, size, GFP_ATOMIC, map->numa_node);
 +        cb = bpf_map_kmalloc_node(map, size, GFP_ATOMIC | __GFP_HACK,
 +                                  map->numa_node);

mm/memcontrol.c:try_charge_memcg():
          if (!do_memsw_account() ||
 -            page_counter_try_charge(&memcg->memsw, batch, &counter)) {
 -                if (page_counter_try_charge(&memcg->memory, batch, &counter))
 +            page_counter_try_charge_hack(&memcg->memsw, batch, &counter,
 +                                         gfp_mask & __GFP_HACK)) {
 +                if (page_counter_try_charge_hack(&memcg->memory, batch,
 +                                                 &counter,
 +                                                 gfp_mask & __GFP_HACK))
                          goto done_restock;

mm/page_counter.c:page_counter_try_charge():
 -bool page_counter_try_charge(struct page_counter *counter,
 -                             unsigned long nr_pages,
 -                             struct page_counter **fail)
 +bool page_counter_try_charge_hack(struct page_counter *counter,
 +                                  unsigned long nr_pages,
 +                                  struct page_counter **fail, bool hack)
 {
...
 -                if (new > c->max) {
 +                if (hack || new > c->max) {     // goto failed;
                          atomic_long_sub(nr_pages, &c->usage);

Fixes: b00628b1c7d5 ("bpf: Introduce bpf timers.")
Suggested-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@linux.dev>
Signed-off-by: Peilin Ye <yepeilin@google.com>
---
 kernel/bpf/helpers.c | 10 ++++++++--
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
index b9b0c5fe33f6..508b13c24778 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
@@ -1274,8 +1274,14 @@ static int __bpf_async_init(struct bpf_async_kern *async, struct bpf_map *map, u
 		goto out;
 	}
 
-	/* allocate hrtimer via map_kmalloc to use memcg accounting */
-	cb = bpf_map_kmalloc_node(map, size, GFP_ATOMIC, map->numa_node);
+	/* Allocate via bpf_map_kmalloc_node() for memcg accounting. Use
+	 * __GFP_HIGH instead of GFP_ATOMIC to avoid calling
+	 * cgroup_file_notify() if an MEMCG_MAX event is raised by
+	 * try_charge_memcg(). This prevents various locking issues, including
+	 * double-acquiring locks that may already be held here (e.g.,
+	 * cgroup_file_kn_lock, rq_lock).
+	 */
+	cb = bpf_map_kmalloc_node(map, size, __GFP_HIGH, map->numa_node);
 	if (!cb) {
 		ret = -ENOMEM;
 		goto out;
-- 
2.51.0.355.g5224444f11-goog

             reply	other threads:[~2025-09-05 23:46 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-09-05 23:45 Peilin Ye [this message]
2025-09-05 23:54 ` [PATCH bpf] bpf/helpers: Use __GFP_HIGH instead of GFP_ATOMIC in __bpf_async_init() Peilin Ye
2025-09-08 17:32 ` Shakeel Butt
2025-09-08 20:30   ` Peilin Ye

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20250905234547.862249-1-yepeilin@google.com \
    --to=yepeilin@google.com \
    --cc=andrii@kernel.org \
    --cc=ast@kernel.org \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=brho@google.com \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
    --cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
    --cc=haoluo@google.com \
    --cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
    --cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
    --cc=joshdon@google.com \
    --cc=kpsingh@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
    --cc=memxor@gmail.com \
    --cc=roman.gushchin@linux.dev \
    --cc=sdf@fomichev.me \
    --cc=shakeel.butt@linux.dev \
    --cc=song@kernel.org \
    --cc=tj@kernel.org \
    --cc=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox