From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Prateek Sood <prsood@codeaurora.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
avagin@gmail.com, mingo@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
cgroups@vger.kernel.org, sramana@codeaurora.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cgroup/cpuset: fix circular locking dependency
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 16:31:27 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180109003127.GA30224@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180108225238.GN9671@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 02:52:38PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 04:28:23AM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Hello, Paul.
> >
> > Sorry about the delay. Travel followed by cold. :(
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 10:01:19AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > Actually, after taking a quick look, could you please supply me with
> > > a way of mark a statically allocated workqueue as WQ_MEM_RECLAIM after
> > > the fact? Otherwise, I end up having to check for the workqueue having
> >
> > Hmmm... there is no statically allocated workqueue tho. If you're
> > referring to the system-wide workqueues (system*_wq), they're just
> > created dynamically early during boot.
>
> Good point, I was confused. But yes, they are conveniently allocated
> just before the call to rcu_init(), which does work out well. ;-)
>
> > > been allocated pretty much each time I use it, which is going to be an
> > > open invitation for bugs. Plus it looks like there are ways that RCU's
> > > workqueue wakeups can be executed during very early boot, which can be
> > > handled, but again in a rather messy fashion.
> > >
> > > In contrast, given a way of mark a statically allocated workqueue
> > > as WQ_MEM_RECLAIM after the fact, I simply continue initializing the
> > > workqueue at early boot, and then add the WQ_MEM_RECLAIM marking some
> > > arbitrarily chosen time after the scheduler has been initialized.
> > >
> > > The required change to workqueues looks easy, just move the body of
> > > the "if (flags & WQ_MEM_RECLAIM) {" statement in __alloc_workqueue_key()
> > > to a separate function, right?
> >
> > Ah, okay, yes, currently, workqueue init is kinda silly in that while
> > it allows init of non-mem-reclaiming workqueues way before workqueue
> > is actually online, it doesn't allow the same for mem-reclaiming ones.
> > As you pointed out, it's just an oversight on my part as the init path
> > split was done initially to accomodate early init of system
> > workqueues.
> >
> > I'll update the code so that rescuers can be added later too; however,
> > please note that while the work items may be queued, they won't be
> > executed until workqueue_init() is run (the same as now) as there
> > can't be worker threads anyway before that point.
>
> Thank you! I added the following patch to allow RCU access to the
> init_rescuer() function. Does that work for you, or did you have some
> other arrangement in mind?
And here are the corresponding changes to RCU, which pass light rcutorture
testing.
Thanx, Paul
------------------------------------------------------------------------
commit d0d6626927faf3421df6a1db875ad7099f7d49cd
Author: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Mon Jan 8 14:35:52 2018 -0800
rcu: Create RCU-specific workqueues with rescuers
RCU's expedited grace periods can participate in out-of-memory deadlocks
due to all available system_wq kthreads being blocked and there not being
memory available to create more. This commit prevents such deadlocks
by allocating an RCU-specific workqueue_struct at early boot time, and
providing it with a rescuer to ensure forward progress. This uses the
shiny new init_rescuer() function provided by Tejun.
This commit also causes SRCU to use this new RCU-specific
workqueue_struct. Note that SRCU's use of workqueues never blocks them
waiting for readers, so this should be safe from a forward-progress
viewpoint.
Reported-by: Prateek Sood <prsood@codeaurora.org>
Reported-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/rcu.h b/kernel/rcu/rcu.h
index 59c471de342a..acabc4781b08 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/rcu.h
+++ b/kernel/rcu/rcu.h
@@ -493,6 +493,7 @@ void show_rcu_gp_kthreads(void);
void rcu_force_quiescent_state(void);
void rcu_bh_force_quiescent_state(void);
void rcu_sched_force_quiescent_state(void);
+extern struct workqueue_struct *rcu_gp_workqueue;
#endif /* #else #ifdef CONFIG_TINY_RCU */
#ifdef CONFIG_RCU_NOCB_CPU
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c b/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c
index 6d5880089ff6..89f0f6b3ce9a 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c
+++ b/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c
@@ -465,7 +465,7 @@ static bool srcu_queue_delayed_work_on(int cpu, struct workqueue_struct *wq,
*/
static void srcu_schedule_cbs_sdp(struct srcu_data *sdp, unsigned long delay)
{
- srcu_queue_delayed_work_on(sdp->cpu, system_power_efficient_wq,
+ srcu_queue_delayed_work_on(sdp->cpu, rcu_gp_workqueue,
&sdp->work, delay);
}
@@ -664,7 +664,7 @@ static void srcu_funnel_gp_start(struct srcu_struct *sp, struct srcu_data *sdp,
rcu_seq_state(sp->srcu_gp_seq) == SRCU_STATE_IDLE) {
WARN_ON_ONCE(ULONG_CMP_GE(sp->srcu_gp_seq, sp->srcu_gp_seq_needed));
srcu_gp_start(sp);
- queue_delayed_work(system_power_efficient_wq, &sp->work,
+ queue_delayed_work(rcu_gp_workqueue, &sp->work,
srcu_get_delay(sp));
}
raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore_rcu_node(sp, flags);
@@ -1198,7 +1198,7 @@ static void srcu_reschedule(struct srcu_struct *sp, unsigned long delay)
raw_spin_unlock_irq_rcu_node(sp);
if (pushgp)
- queue_delayed_work(system_power_efficient_wq, &sp->work, delay);
+ queue_delayed_work(rcu_gp_workqueue, &sp->work, delay);
}
/*
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
index f9c0ca2ccf0c..99c12650b9db 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
@@ -4272,6 +4272,15 @@ static void __init rcu_dump_rcu_node_tree(struct rcu_state *rsp)
pr_cont("\n");
}
+struct workqueue_struct *rcu_gp_workqueue;
+
+static int __init rcu_init_wq_rescuer(void)
+{
+ WARN_ON(init_rescuer(rcu_gp_workqueue));
+ return 0;
+}
+core_initcall(rcu_init_wq_rescuer);
+
void __init rcu_init(void)
{
int cpu;
@@ -4298,6 +4307,10 @@ void __init rcu_init(void)
rcu_cpu_starting(cpu);
rcutree_online_cpu(cpu);
}
+
+ /* Create workqueue for expedited GPs and for Tree SRCU. */
+ rcu_gp_workqueue = alloc_workqueue("rcu_gp", 0, 0);
+ WARN_ON(!rcu_gp_workqueue);
}
#include "tree_exp.h"
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h
index 46d61b597731..3ba3ef4d4796 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h
@@ -606,7 +606,7 @@ static void _synchronize_rcu_expedited(struct rcu_state *rsp,
rew.rew_rsp = rsp;
rew.rew_s = s;
INIT_WORK_ONSTACK(&rew.rew_work, wait_rcu_exp_gp);
- schedule_work(&rew.rew_work);
+ queue_work(rcu_gp_workqueue, &rew.rew_work);
}
/* Wait for expedited grace period to complete. */
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-01-09 0:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <CANaxB-zT+sz=z1FFk5npnwMySdfKCBZDkM+P+=JXDkCXbh=rCw@mail.gmail.com>
2017-11-28 11:35 ` [PATCH] cgroup/cpuset: fix circular locking dependency Prateek Sood
2017-12-04 5:14 ` Prateek Sood
2017-12-04 20:22 ` Tejun Heo
2017-12-04 22:58 ` Tejun Heo
2017-12-04 23:01 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-12-08 9:40 ` Prateek Sood
2017-12-08 11:45 ` Prateek Sood
2017-12-11 15:32 ` Tejun Heo
2017-12-13 14:28 ` Prateek Sood
2017-12-13 15:40 ` Tejun Heo
2017-12-15 8:54 ` Prateek Sood
2017-12-15 13:22 ` Tejun Heo
2017-12-15 19:06 ` Prateek Sood
2017-12-19 7:26 ` [PATCH] cgroup: Fix deadlock in cpu hotplug path Prateek Sood
2017-12-19 13:39 ` Tejun Heo
2017-12-11 15:20 ` [PATCH] cgroup/cpuset: fix circular locking dependency Tejun Heo
2017-12-13 7:50 ` Prateek Sood
2017-12-13 16:06 ` Tejun Heo
2017-12-15 19:04 ` Prateek Sood
2017-12-28 20:37 ` Prateek Sood
2018-01-02 16:16 ` Tejun Heo
2018-01-02 17:44 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-01-02 18:01 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-01-08 12:28 ` Tejun Heo
2018-01-08 13:47 ` [PATCH wq/for-4.16 1/2] workqueue: separate out init_rescuer() Tejun Heo
2018-01-08 13:47 ` [PATCH wq/for-4.16 2/2] workqueue: allow WQ_MEM_RECLAIM on early init workqueues Tejun Heo
2018-01-08 22:52 ` [PATCH] cgroup/cpuset: fix circular locking dependency Paul E. McKenney
2018-01-09 0:31 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2018-01-09 3:42 ` Tejun Heo
2018-01-09 4:20 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-01-09 13:44 ` Tejun Heo
2018-01-09 15:21 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-01-09 15:37 ` Tejun Heo
2018-01-09 16:00 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-01-10 20:08 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-01-10 21:41 ` Tejun Heo
2018-01-10 22:10 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-01-15 12:02 ` Prateek Sood
2018-01-16 16:27 ` Tejun Heo
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=20180109003127.GA30224@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=avagin@gmail.com \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=prsood@codeaurora.org \
--cc=sramana@codeaurora.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).