From: SeongJae Park <sj@kernel.org>
To: Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org>
Cc: SeongJae Park <sj@kernel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
kernel-team@meta.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] mm/kmemleak: avoid soft lockup when scanning task stacks
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2026 18:10:48 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260612011049.84146-1-sj@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260611-kmemleak-stack-resched-v1-1-d6248ade5f4a@debian.org>
On Thu, 11 Jun 2026 05:45:00 -0700 Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org> wrote:
> kmemleak_scan() walks every thread and scans its kernel stack under a
> single rcu_read_lock() with no reschedule point. On a host with very
> many threads -- amplified by KASAN/lockdep in debug builds -- this loop
> can hog a CPU long enough to trip the soft lockup watchdog:
>
> watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#35 stuck for 22s! [kmemleak:537]
> scan_block
> kmemleak_scan
> kmemleak_scan_thread
> kthread
>
> A cond_resched() cannot be added directly: the loop runs inside an RCU
> read-side critical section.
>
> Split the scan in two parts:
>
> 1) get the list of tasks (with RCU read lock) in an array
> 2) run scan_block() for the tasks (with cond_reschd()).
>
> Is it a sane approach?
>
> Signed-off-by: Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org>
> ---
> mm/kmemleak.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/kmemleak.c b/mm/kmemleak.c
> index 7c7ba17ce7af0..9f8a35ecbb50c 100644
> --- a/mm/kmemleak.c
> +++ b/mm/kmemleak.c
> @@ -62,6 +62,7 @@
> #include <linux/kernel.h>
> #include <linux/list.h>
> #include <linux/sched/signal.h>
> +#include <linux/sched/stat.h>
> #include <linux/sched/task.h>
> #include <linux/sched/task_stack.h>
> #include <linux/jiffies.h>
> @@ -1885,17 +1886,34 @@ static void kmemleak_scan(void)
> * Scanning the task stacks (may introduce false negatives).
> */
> if (kmemleak_stack_scan) {
> - struct task_struct *p, *g;
> + struct task_struct **tasks, *p, *g;
> + unsigned int nr = 0, max, i;
>
> + max = nr_threads + 64;
> + tasks = kvmalloc_array(max, sizeof(*tasks), GFP_KERNEL);
> +
> + /* Snapshot the threads under RCU */
> rcu_read_lock();
> for_each_process_thread(g, p) {
> - void *stack = try_get_task_stack(p);
> + if (!tasks || nr >= max)
> + break;
Why don't you check !tasks right after the allocation?
> + get_task_struct(p);
> + tasks[nr++] = p;
> + }
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> +
> + /* now scan_block for the tasks above with cond_resched() */
> + for (i = 0; i < nr; i++) {
> + void *stack = try_get_task_stack(tasks[i]);
> +
> if (stack) {
> scan_block(stack, stack + THREAD_SIZE, NULL);
> - put_task_stack(p);
> + put_task_stack(tasks[i]);
> }
> + put_task_struct(tasks[i]);
> + cond_resched();
> }
> - rcu_read_unlock();
> + kvfree(tasks);
> }
Thanks,
SJ
[...]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-06-12 1:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-06-11 12:45 [PATCH RFC] mm/kmemleak: avoid soft lockup when scanning task stacks Breno Leitao
2026-06-12 1:10 ` SeongJae Park [this message]
2026-06-12 3:16 ` Lance Yang
2026-06-12 4:27 ` Lance Yang
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=20260612011049.84146-1-sj@kernel.org \
--to=sj@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
--cc=leitao@debian.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.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