* [PATCH] mm/kmemleak: report RCU-tasks quiescent states during the scan
@ 2026-07-20 13:23 Breno Leitao
2026-07-20 15:25 ` Paul E. McKenney
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Breno Leitao @ 2026-07-20 13:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Catalin Marinas, Andrew Morton
Cc: paulmck, puranjay, linux-mm, linux-kernel, bpf, kernel-team,
Breno Leitao
kmemleak_scan() can run for ages on large debug kernels. It was
causing some soft-lockups which I got fixed with commit
3175fcfec8b16baeb ("mm/kmemleak: avoid soft lockup when scanning task
stacks") with our beloved cond_resched().
I've got the fix above deployed in the Meta fleet, and now I am seeing:
INFO: rcu_tasks detected stalls on tasks:
task:kmemleak state:R ... nvcsw: 274/274 holdout: 1 idle_cpu: -1/3
scan_block
scan_gray_list
kmemleak_scan
and, worse, blocks the callers waiting on that grace period. Here a BPF
struct_ops map free, which waits via synchronize_rcu_mult(call_rcu,
call_rcu_tasks), is stuck long enough to also trip the hung task check:
INFO: task kworker/...:bpf_map_free_deferred blocked for 122 seconds
__wait_rcu_gp
bpf_struct_ops_map_free
Then I've learned that cond_resched() is not an RCU-tasks quiescent
state, so, we need to use stronger primitives.
Use cond_resched_tasks_rcu_qs() at the scan reschedule points so the scan
reports an RCU-tasks quiescent state as it proceeds.
Inspired by commit b96285e10aad ("tracing: Have osnoise_main() add a
quiescent state for task rcu").
Signed-off-by: Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org>
---
mm/kmemleak.c | 14 +++++++-------
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/kmemleak.c b/mm/kmemleak.c
index 85f18b17e79c4..f63dfacee7ca1 100644
--- a/mm/kmemleak.c
+++ b/mm/kmemleak.c
@@ -1586,7 +1586,7 @@ static int scan_large_block(void *start, void *end)
if (scan_block(start, next, NULL))
return 1;
start = next;
- cond_resched();
+ cond_resched_tasks_rcu_qs();
}
return 0;
@@ -1623,7 +1623,7 @@ static void scan_object(struct kmemleak_object *object)
scan_block(start, end, object);
raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&object->lock, flags);
- cond_resched();
+ cond_resched_tasks_rcu_qs();
raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&object->lock, flags);
if (!(object->flags & OBJECT_ALLOCATED))
break;
@@ -1645,7 +1645,7 @@ static void scan_object(struct kmemleak_object *object)
break;
raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&object->lock, flags);
- cond_resched();
+ cond_resched_tasks_rcu_qs();
raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&object->lock, flags);
} while (object->flags & OBJECT_ALLOCATED);
} else {
@@ -1673,7 +1673,7 @@ static void scan_gray_list(void)
*/
object = list_entry(gray_list.next, typeof(*object), gray_list);
while (&object->gray_list != &gray_list) {
- cond_resched();
+ cond_resched_tasks_rcu_qs();
/* may add new objects to the list */
if (!scan_should_stop())
@@ -1708,7 +1708,7 @@ static void kmemleak_cond_resched(struct kmemleak_object *object)
raw_spin_unlock_irq(&kmemleak_lock);
rcu_read_unlock();
- cond_resched();
+ cond_resched_tasks_rcu_qs();
rcu_read_lock();
raw_spin_lock_irq(&kmemleak_lock);
@@ -1753,7 +1753,7 @@ static void kmemleak_scan_task_stacks(void)
}
put_task_struct(p);
}
- cond_resched();
+ cond_resched_tasks_rcu_qs();
} while (pid && !stop);
}
@@ -1935,7 +1935,7 @@ static int __kmemleak_scan(bool full)
struct page *page = pfn_to_online_page(pfn);
if (!(pfn & 63))
- cond_resched();
+ cond_resched_tasks_rcu_qs();
if (!page)
continue;
---
base-commit: 0718283ab28bc3907e10b61a6b4be6fefa1cbb2f
change-id: 20260720-kmemleak_rcu_task-6d3ea111b947
Best regards,
--
Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org>
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] mm/kmemleak: report RCU-tasks quiescent states during the scan
2026-07-20 13:23 [PATCH] mm/kmemleak: report RCU-tasks quiescent states during the scan Breno Leitao
@ 2026-07-20 15:25 ` Paul E. McKenney
2026-07-20 22:39 ` Andrew Morton
2026-07-21 0:00 ` SJ Park
2 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Paul E. McKenney @ 2026-07-20 15:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Breno Leitao
Cc: Catalin Marinas, Andrew Morton, puranjay, linux-mm, linux-kernel,
bpf, kernel-team
On Mon, Jul 20, 2026 at 06:23:45AM -0700, Breno Leitao wrote:
> kmemleak_scan() can run for ages on large debug kernels. It was
> causing some soft-lockups which I got fixed with commit
> 3175fcfec8b16baeb ("mm/kmemleak: avoid soft lockup when scanning task
> stacks") with our beloved cond_resched().
>
> I've got the fix above deployed in the Meta fleet, and now I am seeing:
>
> INFO: rcu_tasks detected stalls on tasks:
> task:kmemleak state:R ... nvcsw: 274/274 holdout: 1 idle_cpu: -1/3
> scan_block
> scan_gray_list
> kmemleak_scan
>
> and, worse, blocks the callers waiting on that grace period. Here a BPF
> struct_ops map free, which waits via synchronize_rcu_mult(call_rcu,
> call_rcu_tasks), is stuck long enough to also trip the hung task check:
>
> INFO: task kworker/...:bpf_map_free_deferred blocked for 122 seconds
> __wait_rcu_gp
> bpf_struct_ops_map_free
>
> Then I've learned that cond_resched() is not an RCU-tasks quiescent
> state, so, we need to use stronger primitives.
>
> Use cond_resched_tasks_rcu_qs() at the scan reschedule points so the scan
> reports an RCU-tasks quiescent state as it proceeds.
>
> Inspired by commit b96285e10aad ("tracing: Have osnoise_main() add a
> quiescent state for task rcu").
>
> Signed-off-by: Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org>
Reviewed-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
> ---
> mm/kmemleak.c | 14 +++++++-------
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/kmemleak.c b/mm/kmemleak.c
> index 85f18b17e79c4..f63dfacee7ca1 100644
> --- a/mm/kmemleak.c
> +++ b/mm/kmemleak.c
> @@ -1586,7 +1586,7 @@ static int scan_large_block(void *start, void *end)
> if (scan_block(start, next, NULL))
> return 1;
> start = next;
> - cond_resched();
> + cond_resched_tasks_rcu_qs();
> }
>
> return 0;
> @@ -1623,7 +1623,7 @@ static void scan_object(struct kmemleak_object *object)
> scan_block(start, end, object);
>
> raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&object->lock, flags);
> - cond_resched();
> + cond_resched_tasks_rcu_qs();
> raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&object->lock, flags);
> if (!(object->flags & OBJECT_ALLOCATED))
> break;
> @@ -1645,7 +1645,7 @@ static void scan_object(struct kmemleak_object *object)
> break;
>
> raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&object->lock, flags);
> - cond_resched();
> + cond_resched_tasks_rcu_qs();
> raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&object->lock, flags);
> } while (object->flags & OBJECT_ALLOCATED);
> } else {
> @@ -1673,7 +1673,7 @@ static void scan_gray_list(void)
> */
> object = list_entry(gray_list.next, typeof(*object), gray_list);
> while (&object->gray_list != &gray_list) {
> - cond_resched();
> + cond_resched_tasks_rcu_qs();
>
> /* may add new objects to the list */
> if (!scan_should_stop())
> @@ -1708,7 +1708,7 @@ static void kmemleak_cond_resched(struct kmemleak_object *object)
> raw_spin_unlock_irq(&kmemleak_lock);
>
> rcu_read_unlock();
> - cond_resched();
> + cond_resched_tasks_rcu_qs();
> rcu_read_lock();
>
> raw_spin_lock_irq(&kmemleak_lock);
> @@ -1753,7 +1753,7 @@ static void kmemleak_scan_task_stacks(void)
> }
> put_task_struct(p);
> }
> - cond_resched();
> + cond_resched_tasks_rcu_qs();
> } while (pid && !stop);
> }
>
> @@ -1935,7 +1935,7 @@ static int __kmemleak_scan(bool full)
> struct page *page = pfn_to_online_page(pfn);
>
> if (!(pfn & 63))
> - cond_resched();
> + cond_resched_tasks_rcu_qs();
>
> if (!page)
> continue;
>
> ---
> base-commit: 0718283ab28bc3907e10b61a6b4be6fefa1cbb2f
> change-id: 20260720-kmemleak_rcu_task-6d3ea111b947
>
> Best regards,
> --
> Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] mm/kmemleak: report RCU-tasks quiescent states during the scan
2026-07-20 13:23 [PATCH] mm/kmemleak: report RCU-tasks quiescent states during the scan Breno Leitao
2026-07-20 15:25 ` Paul E. McKenney
@ 2026-07-20 22:39 ` Andrew Morton
2026-07-21 4:21 ` Paul E. McKenney
2026-07-21 0:00 ` SJ Park
2 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Morton @ 2026-07-20 22:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Breno Leitao
Cc: Catalin Marinas, paulmck, puranjay, linux-mm, linux-kernel, bpf,
kernel-team
On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 06:23:45 -0700 Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org> wrote:
> kmemleak_scan() can run for ages on large debug kernels. It was
> causing some soft-lockups which I got fixed with commit
> 3175fcfec8b16baeb ("mm/kmemleak: avoid soft lockup when scanning task
> stacks") with our beloved cond_resched().
>
> I've got the fix above deployed in the Meta fleet, and now I am seeing:
>
> INFO: rcu_tasks detected stalls on tasks:
> task:kmemleak state:R ... nvcsw: 274/274 holdout: 1 idle_cpu: -1/3
> scan_block
> scan_gray_list
> kmemleak_scan
>
> and, worse, blocks the callers waiting on that grace period. Here a BPF
> struct_ops map free, which waits via synchronize_rcu_mult(call_rcu,
> call_rcu_tasks), is stuck long enough to also trip the hung task check:
>
> INFO: task kworker/...:bpf_map_free_deferred blocked for 122 seconds
> __wait_rcu_gp
> bpf_struct_ops_map_free
>
> Then I've learned that cond_resched() is not an RCU-tasks quiescent
> state, so, we need to use stronger primitives.
>
> Use cond_resched_tasks_rcu_qs() at the scan reschedule points so the scan
> reports an RCU-tasks quiescent state as it proceeds.
>
> Inspired by commit b96285e10aad ("tracing: Have osnoise_main() add a
> quiescent state for task rcu").
I'll add
Fixes: c4b28963fd79 ("mm/kmemleak: rely on rcu for task stack scanning")
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
.
.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] mm/kmemleak: report RCU-tasks quiescent states during the scan
2026-07-20 22:39 ` Andrew Morton
@ 2026-07-21 4:21 ` Paul E. McKenney
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Paul E. McKenney @ 2026-07-21 4:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Morton
Cc: Breno Leitao, Catalin Marinas, puranjay, linux-mm, linux-kernel,
bpf, kernel-team
On Mon, Jul 20, 2026 at 03:39:17PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 06:23:45 -0700 Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org> wrote:
>
> > kmemleak_scan() can run for ages on large debug kernels. It was
> > causing some soft-lockups which I got fixed with commit
> > 3175fcfec8b16baeb ("mm/kmemleak: avoid soft lockup when scanning task
> > stacks") with our beloved cond_resched().
> >
> > I've got the fix above deployed in the Meta fleet, and now I am seeing:
> >
> > INFO: rcu_tasks detected stalls on tasks:
> > task:kmemleak state:R ... nvcsw: 274/274 holdout: 1 idle_cpu: -1/3
> > scan_block
> > scan_gray_list
> > kmemleak_scan
> >
> > and, worse, blocks the callers waiting on that grace period. Here a BPF
> > struct_ops map free, which waits via synchronize_rcu_mult(call_rcu,
> > call_rcu_tasks), is stuck long enough to also trip the hung task check:
> >
> > INFO: task kworker/...:bpf_map_free_deferred blocked for 122 seconds
> > __wait_rcu_gp
> > bpf_struct_ops_map_free
> >
> > Then I've learned that cond_resched() is not an RCU-tasks quiescent
> > state, so, we need to use stronger primitives.
> >
> > Use cond_resched_tasks_rcu_qs() at the scan reschedule points so the scan
> > reports an RCU-tasks quiescent state as it proceeds.
> >
> > Inspired by commit b96285e10aad ("tracing: Have osnoise_main() add a
> > quiescent state for task rcu").
>
> I'll add
>
> Fixes: c4b28963fd79 ("mm/kmemleak: rely on rcu for task stack scanning")
> Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Thanks to all three of you!
This adds fewer than ten calls to cond_resched_tasks_rcu_qs(), but still
more than doubles the number of such calls outside of the RCU subsystem.
Which is most likely just fine, and in any case absolutely should not
get in the way of Breno's patch, which after all solves a real problem
in the here and now.
Nevertheless, on the off-chance that over the next few months or years
we start playing cond_resched_tasks_rcu_qs() whack-a-mole, I figured it
would be good to get a head start on writing up alternatives. An initial
draft may be found here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1s3fn29SCTYVw9jak4iraNIVQR59Wk5C6_I-_eu-MfQA/edit?usp=sharing
TL;DR: Should we get into a rousing game of whack-a-mole, alternatives
include continuing as we are, making the existing calls to cond_resched()
in turn call cond_resched_tasks_rcu_qs(), decoupling mutex-induced
hung-task warnings from synchronize_rcu_tasks(), and various
not-so-practical alternatives to RCU Tasks for trampoline synchronization.
Thoughts? Especially thoughts on other schemes?
Thanx, Paul
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] mm/kmemleak: report RCU-tasks quiescent states during the scan
2026-07-20 13:23 [PATCH] mm/kmemleak: report RCU-tasks quiescent states during the scan Breno Leitao
2026-07-20 15:25 ` Paul E. McKenney
2026-07-20 22:39 ` Andrew Morton
@ 2026-07-21 0:00 ` SJ Park
2 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: SJ Park @ 2026-07-21 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Breno Leitao
Cc: SJ Park, Catalin Marinas, Andrew Morton, paulmck, puranjay,
linux-mm, linux-kernel, bpf, kernel-team
On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 06:23:45 -0700 Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org> wrote:
> kmemleak_scan() can run for ages on large debug kernels. It was
> causing some soft-lockups which I got fixed with commit
> 3175fcfec8b16baeb ("mm/kmemleak: avoid soft lockup when scanning task
> stacks") with our beloved cond_resched().
>
> I've got the fix above deployed in the Meta fleet, and now I am seeing:
>
> INFO: rcu_tasks detected stalls on tasks:
> task:kmemleak state:R ... nvcsw: 274/274 holdout: 1 idle_cpu: -1/3
> scan_block
> scan_gray_list
> kmemleak_scan
>
> and, worse, blocks the callers waiting on that grace period. Here a BPF
> struct_ops map free, which waits via synchronize_rcu_mult(call_rcu,
> call_rcu_tasks), is stuck long enough to also trip the hung task check:
>
> INFO: task kworker/...:bpf_map_free_deferred blocked for 122 seconds
> __wait_rcu_gp
> bpf_struct_ops_map_free
>
> Then I've learned that cond_resched() is not an RCU-tasks quiescent
> state, so, we need to use stronger primitives.
>
> Use cond_resched_tasks_rcu_qs() at the scan reschedule points so the scan
> reports an RCU-tasks quiescent state as it proceeds.
>
> Inspired by commit b96285e10aad ("tracing: Have osnoise_main() add a
> quiescent state for task rcu").
Makes sense to me.
>
> Signed-off-by: Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org>
Reviewed-by: SJ Park <sj@kernel.org>
Thanks,
SJ
[...]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2026-07-21 4:21 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2026-07-20 13:23 [PATCH] mm/kmemleak: report RCU-tasks quiescent states during the scan Breno Leitao
2026-07-20 15:25 ` Paul E. McKenney
2026-07-20 22:39 ` Andrew Morton
2026-07-21 4:21 ` Paul E. McKenney
2026-07-21 0:00 ` SJ Park
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox