Re: [PATCH 0/2] Fix 100% CPU usage issue in IOU worker threads

姜智伟
2025-04-22T14:18:53Z

On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 10:13 PM Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> wrote:
>
> On 4/22/25 8:10 AM, ??? wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 9:35?PM Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 4/22/25 4:45 AM, Zhiwei Jiang wrote:
> >>> In the Firecracker VM scenario, sporadically encountered threads with
> >>> the UN state in the following call stack:
> >>> [<0>] io_wq_put_and_exit+0xa1/0x210
> >>> [<0>] io_uring_clean_tctx+0x8e/0xd0
> >>> [<0>] io_uring_cancel_generic+0x19f/0x370
> >>> [<0>] __io_uring_cancel+0x14/0x20
> >>> [<0>] do_exit+0x17f/0x510
> >>> [<0>] do_group_exit+0x35/0x90
> >>> [<0>] get_signal+0x963/0x970
> >>> [<0>] arch_do_signal_or_restart+0x39/0x120
> >>> [<0>] syscall_exit_to_user_mode+0x206/0x260
> >>> [<0>] do_syscall_64+0x8d/0x170
> >>> [<0>] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x78/0x80
> >>> The cause is a large number of IOU kernel threads saturating the CPU
> >>> and not exiting. When the issue occurs, CPU usage 100% and can only
> >>> be resolved by rebooting. Each thread's appears as follows:
> >>> iou-wrk-44588 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] ret_from_fork_asm
> >>> iou-wrk-44588 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] ret_from_fork
> >>> iou-wrk-44588 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] io_wq_worker
> >>> iou-wrk-44588 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] io_worker_handle_work
> >>> iou-wrk-44588 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] io_wq_submit_work
> >>> iou-wrk-44588 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] io_issue_sqe
> >>> iou-wrk-44588 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] io_write
> >>> iou-wrk-44588 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] blkdev_write_iter
> >>> iou-wrk-44588 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] iomap_file_buffered_write
> >>> iou-wrk-44588 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] iomap_write_iter
> >>> iou-wrk-44588 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] fault_in_iov_iter_readable
> >>> iou-wrk-44588 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] fault_in_readable
> >>> iou-wrk-44588 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] asm_exc_page_fault
> >>> iou-wrk-44588 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] exc_page_fault
> >>> iou-wrk-44588 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] do_user_addr_fault
> >>> iou-wrk-44588 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] handle_mm_fault
> >>> iou-wrk-44588 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] hugetlb_fault
> >>> iou-wrk-44588 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] hugetlb_no_page
> >>> iou-wrk-44588 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] hugetlb_handle_userfault
> >>> iou-wrk-44588 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] handle_userfault
> >>> iou-wrk-44588 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] schedule
> >>> iou-wrk-44588 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] __schedule
> >>> iou-wrk-44588 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] __raw_spin_unlock_irq
> >>> iou-wrk-44588 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] io_wq_worker_sleeping
> >>>
> >>> I tracked the address that triggered the fault and the related function
> >>> graph, as well as the wake-up side of the user fault, and discovered this
> >>> : In the IOU worker, when fault in a user space page, this space is
> >>> associated with a userfault but does not sleep. This is because during
> >>> scheduling, the judgment in the IOU worker context leads to early return.
> >>> Meanwhile, the listener on the userfaultfd user side never performs a COPY
> >>> to respond, causing the page table entry to remain empty. However, due to
> >>> the early return, it does not sleep and wait to be awakened as in a normal
> >>> user fault, thus continuously faulting at the same address,so CPU loop.
> >>> Therefore, I believe it is necessary to specifically handle user faults by
> >>> setting a new flag to allow schedule function to continue in such cases,
> >>> make sure the thread to sleep.
> >>>
> >>> Patch 1 io_uring: Add new functions to handle user fault scenarios
> >>> Patch 2 userfaultfd: Set the corresponding flag in IOU worker context
> >>>
> >>> fs/userfaultfd.c | 7 ++++++
> >>> io_uring/io-wq.c | 57 +++++++++++++++---------------------------------
> >>> io_uring/io-wq.h | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> >>> 3 files changed, 68 insertions(+), 41 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> Do you have a test case for this? I don't think the proposed solution is
> >> very elegant, userfaultfd should not need to know about thread workers.
> >> I'll ponder this a bit...
> >>
> >> --
> >> Jens Axboe
> > Sorry,The issue occurs very infrequently, and I can't manually
> > reproduce it. It's not very elegant, but for corner cases, it seems
> > necessary to make some compromises.
>
> I'm going to see if I can create one. Not sure I fully understand the
> issue yet, but I'd be surprised if there isn't a more appropriate and
> elegant solution rather than exposing the io-wq guts and having
> userfaultfd manipulate them. That really should not be necessary.
>
> --
> Jens Axboe
Thanks.I'm looking forward to your good news.