From: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
To: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>, tj@kernel.org
Cc: joseph.qi@linux.alibaba.com, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] blk-cgroup: Use cond_resched() when destroy blkgs
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2021 20:41:33 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3f3c12de-b5fb-a9ad-9324-55f5bf9d7453@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8e8a0c4644d5eb01b7f79ec9b67c2b240f4a6434.1611798287.git.baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>
On 1/27/21 8:22 PM, Baolin Wang wrote:
> On !PREEMPT kernel, we can get below softlockup when doing stress
> testing with creating and destroying block cgroup repeatly. The
> reason is it may take a long time to acquire the queue's lock in
> the loop of blkcg_destroy_blkgs(), or the system can accumulate a
> huge number of blkgs in pathological cases. We can add a need_resched()
> check on each loop and release locks and do cond_resched() if true
> to avoid this issue, since the blkcg_destroy_blkgs() is not called
> from atomic contexts.
>
> [ 4757.010308] watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#11 stuck for 94s!
> [ 4757.010698] Call trace:
> [ 4757.010700] blkcg_destroy_blkgs+0x68/0x150
> [ 4757.010701] cgwb_release_workfn+0x104/0x158
> [ 4757.010702] process_one_work+0x1bc/0x3f0
> [ 4757.010704] worker_thread+0x164/0x468
> [ 4757.010705] kthread+0x108/0x138
Kind of ugly with the two clauses for dropping the blkcg lock, one
being a cpu_relax() and the other a resched. How about something
like this:
diff --git a/block/blk-cgroup.c b/block/blk-cgroup.c
index 031114d454a6..4221a1539391 100644
--- a/block/blk-cgroup.c
+++ b/block/blk-cgroup.c
@@ -1016,6 +1016,8 @@ static void blkcg_css_offline(struct cgroup_subsys_state *css)
*/
void blkcg_destroy_blkgs(struct blkcg *blkcg)
{
+ might_sleep();
+
spin_lock_irq(&blkcg->lock);
while (!hlist_empty(&blkcg->blkg_list)) {
@@ -1023,14 +1025,20 @@ void blkcg_destroy_blkgs(struct blkcg *blkcg)
struct blkcg_gq, blkcg_node);
struct request_queue *q = blkg->q;
- if (spin_trylock(&q->queue_lock)) {
- blkg_destroy(blkg);
- spin_unlock(&q->queue_lock);
- } else {
+ if (need_resched() || !spin_trylock(&q->queue_lock)) {
+ /*
+ * Given that the system can accumulate a huge number
+ * of blkgs in pathological cases, check to see if we
+ * need to rescheduling to avoid softlockup.
+ */
spin_unlock_irq(&blkcg->lock);
- cpu_relax();
+ cond_resched();
spin_lock_irq(&blkcg->lock);
+ continue;
}
+
+ blkg_destroy(blkg);
+ spin_unlock(&q->queue_lock);
}
spin_unlock_irq(&blkcg->lock);
--
Jens Axboe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-01-28 4:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-01-28 3:22 [PATCH v2] blk-cgroup: Use cond_resched() when destroy blkgs Baolin Wang
2021-01-28 3:31 ` Tejun Heo
2021-01-28 3:41 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2021-01-28 3:49 ` Baolin Wang
2021-01-28 3:51 ` Jens Axboe
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=3f3c12de-b5fb-a9ad-9324-55f5bf9d7453@kernel.dk \
--to=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=joseph.qi@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
/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