From: Aaron Lu <ziqianlu@bytedance.com>
To: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>,
Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
Cc: Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Clark Williams <williams@redhat.com>,
"Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" <lgoncalv@redhat.com>,
Andreas Ziegler <ziegler.andreas@siemens.com>,
Felix Moessbauer <felix.moessbauer@siemens.com>,
Florian Bezdeka <florian.bezdeka@siemens.com>
Subject: Re: [RT BUG] Stall caused by eventpoll, rwlocks and CFS bandwidth controller
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2025 20:13:14 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250409121314.GA632990@bytedance> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c92290e0-f5db-49bd-ac51-d429133a224b@amd.com>
On Wed, Apr 09, 2025 at 02:59:18PM +0530, K Prateek Nayak wrote:
> (+ Aaron)
Thank you Prateek for bring me in.
> Hello Jan,
>
> On 4/9/2025 12:11 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > On 12.10.23 17:07, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> > > Hi folks,
> > >
> > > We've had reports of stalls happening on our v6.0-ish frankenkernels, and while
> > > we haven't been able to come out with a reproducer (yet), I don't see anything
> > > upstream that would prevent them from happening.
> > >
> > > The setup involves eventpoll, CFS bandwidth controller and timer
> > > expiry, and the sequence looks as follows (time-ordered):
> > >
> > > p_read (on CPUn, CFS with bandwidth controller active)
> > > ======
> > >
> > > ep_poll_callback()
> > > read_lock_irqsave()
> > > ...
> > > try_to_wake_up() <- enqueue causes an update_curr() + sets need_resched
> > > due to having no more runtime
> > > preempt_enable()
> > > preempt_schedule() <- switch out due to p_read being now throttled
> > >
> > > p_write
> > > =======
> > >
> > > ep_poll()
> > > write_lock_irq() <- blocks due to having active readers (p_read)
> > >
> > > ktimers/n
> > > =========
> > >
> > > timerfd_tmrproc()
> > > `\
> > > ep_poll_callback()
> > > `\
> > > read_lock_irqsave() <- blocks due to having active writer (p_write)
> > >
> > >
> > > From this point we have a circular dependency:
> > >
> > > p_read -> ktimers/n (to replenish runtime of p_read)
> > > ktimers/n -> p_write (to let ktimers/n acquire the readlock)
> > > p_write -> p_read (to let p_write acquire the writelock)
> > >
> > > IIUC reverting
> > > 286deb7ec03d ("locking/rwbase: Mitigate indefinite writer starvation")
> > > should unblock this as the ktimers/n thread wouldn't block, but then we're back
> > > to having the indefinite starvation so I wouldn't necessarily call this a win.
> > >
> > > Two options I'm seeing:
> > > - Prevent p_read from being preempted when it's doing the wakeups under the
> > > readlock (icky)
> > > - Prevent ktimers / ksoftirqd (*) from running the wakeups that have
> > > ep_poll_callback() as a wait_queue_entry callback. Punting that to e.g. a
> > > kworker /should/ do.
> > >
> > > (*) It's not just timerfd, I've also seen it via net::sock_def_readable -
> > > it should be anything that's pollable.
> > >
> > > I'm still scratching my head on this, so any suggestions/comments welcome!
> > >
> >
> > We are hunting for quite some time sporadic lock-ups or RT systems,
> > first only in the field (sigh), now finally also in the lab. Those have
> > a fairly high overlap with what was described here. Our baselines so
> > far: 6.1-rt, Debian and vanilla. We are currently preparing experiments
> > with latest mainline.
>
> Do the backtrace from these lockups show tasks (specifically ktimerd)
> waiting on a rwsem? Throttle deferral helps if cfs bandwidth throttling
> becomes the reason for long delay / circular dependency. Is cfs bandwidth
> throttling being used on these systems that run into these lockups?
> Otherwise, your issue might be completely different.
Agree.
> >
> > While this thread remained silent afterwards, we have found [1][2][3] as
> > apparently related. But this means we are still with this RT bug, even
> > in latest 6.15-rc1?
>
> I'm pretty sure a bunch of locking related stuff has been reworked to
> accommodate PREEMPT_RT since v6.1. Many rwsem based locking patterns
> have been replaced with alternatives like RCU. Recently introduced
> dl_server infrastructure also helps prevent starvation of fair tasks
> which can allow progress and prevent lockups. I would recommend
> checking if the most recent -rt release can still reproduce your
> issue:
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20250331095610.ulLtPP2C@linutronix.de/
>
> Note: Aaron Lu is working on Valentin's approach of deferring cfs
> throttling to exit to user mode boundary
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20250313072030.1032893-1-ziqianlu@bytedance.com/
>
> If you still run into the issue of a lockup / long latencies on latest
> -rt release and your system is using cfs bandwidth controls, you can
> perhaps try running with Valentin's or Aaron's series to check if
> throttle deferral helps your scenario.
I just sent out v2 :-)
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250409120746.635476-1-ziqianlu@bytedance.com/
Hi Jan,
If you want to give it a try, please try v2.
Thanks.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-04-09 12:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-10-12 15:07 [RT BUG] Stall caused by eventpoll, rwlocks and CFS bandwidth controller Valentin Schneider
2025-04-09 6:41 ` Jan Kiszka
2025-04-09 9:29 ` K Prateek Nayak
2025-04-09 12:13 ` Aaron Lu [this message]
2025-04-09 13:44 ` Jan Kiszka
2025-04-14 14:50 ` K Prateek Nayak
2025-04-14 15:05 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2025-04-14 15:18 ` K Prateek Nayak
2025-04-15 5:35 ` Jan Kiszka
2025-04-15 6:23 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2025-04-15 6:54 ` Jan Kiszka
2025-04-15 8:00 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2025-04-15 10:23 ` Jan Kiszka
2025-04-14 16:21 ` K Prateek Nayak
2025-04-09 13:21 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2025-04-09 13:41 ` Jan Kiszka
2025-04-09 13:52 ` Jan Kiszka
2025-04-09 13:57 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
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=20250409121314.GA632990@bytedance \
--to=ziqianlu@bytedance.com \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=felix.moessbauer@siemens.com \
--cc=florian.bezdeka@siemens.com \
--cc=jan.kiszka@siemens.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=kprateek.nayak@amd.com \
--cc=lgoncalv@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=vschneid@redhat.com \
--cc=williams@redhat.com \
--cc=ziegler.andreas@siemens.com \
/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