From: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Cc: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@stressinduktion.org>,
Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>,
Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Soft lockup in inet_put_port on 4.6
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 20:59:52 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1481335192.3663.0@smtp.office365.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6C6EE0ED-7E78-4866-8AAF-D75FD4719EF3@fb.com>
On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 8:01 PM, Josef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 8, 2016, at 7:32 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 2016-12-08 at 16:36 -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
>>>
>>> We can reproduce the problem at will, still trying to run down the
>>> problem. I'll try and find one of the boxes that dumped a core
>>> and get
>>> a bt of everybody. Thanks,
>>
>> OK, sounds good.
>>
>> I had a look and :
>> - could not spot a fix that came after 4.6.
>> - could not spot an obvious bug.
>>
>> Anything special in the program triggering the issue ?
>> SO_REUSEPORT and/or special socket options ?
>>
>
> So they recently started using SO_REUSEPORT, that's what triggered
> it, if they don't use it then everything is fine.
>
> I added some instrumentation for get_port to see if it was looping in
> there and none of my printk's triggered. The softlockup messages are
> always on the inet_bind_bucket lock, sometimes in the process context
> in get_port or in the softirq context either through inet_put_port or
> inet_kill_twsk. On the box that I have a coredump for there's only
> one processor in the inet code so I'm not sure what to make of that.
> That was a box from last week so I'll look at a more recent core and
> see if it's different. Thanks,
Ok more investigation today, a few bullet points
- With all the debugging turned on the boxes seem to recover after
about a minute. I'd get the spam of the soft lockup messages all on
the inet_bind_bucket, and then the box would be fine.
- I looked at a core I had from before I started investigating things
and there's only one process trying to get the inet_bind_bucket of all
the 48 cpus.
- I noticed that there was over 100k twsk's in that original core.
- I put a global counter of the twsk's (since most of the softlockup
messages have the twsk timers in the stack) and noticed with the
debugging kernel it started around 16k twsk's and once it recovered it
was down to less than a thousand. There's a jump where it goes from 8k
to 2k and then there's only one more softlockup message and the box is
fine.
- This happens when we restart the service with the config option to
start using SO_REUSEPORT.
The application is our load balancing app, so obviously has lots of
connections opened at any given time. What I'm wondering and will test
on Monday is if the SO_REUSEPORT change even matters, or if simply
restarting the service is what triggers the problem. One thing I
forgot to mention is that it's also using TCP_FASTOPEN in both the
non-reuseport and reuseport variants.
What I suspect is happening is the service stops, all of the sockets it
had open go into TIMEWAIT with relatively the same timer period, and
then suddenly all wake up at the same time which coupled with the
massive amount of traffic that we see per box anyway results in so much
contention and ksoftirqd usage that the box livelocks for a while.
With the lock debugging and stuff turned on we aren't able to service
as much traffic so it recovers relatively quickly, whereas a normal
production kernel never recovers.
Please keep in mind that I"m a file system developer so my conclusions
may be completely insane, any guidance would be welcome. I'll continue
hammering on this on Monday. Thanks,
Josef
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-12-10 2:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-12-06 23:06 Soft lockup in inet_put_port on 4.6 Tom Herbert
2016-12-08 21:03 ` Hannes Frederic Sowa
2016-12-08 21:36 ` Josef Bacik
2016-12-09 0:30 ` Eric Dumazet
2016-12-09 1:01 ` Josef Bacik
2016-12-10 1:59 ` Josef Bacik [this message]
2016-12-10 3:47 ` Eric Dumazet
2016-12-10 4:14 ` Eric Dumazet
2016-12-12 18:05 ` Josef Bacik
2016-12-12 18:44 ` Hannes Frederic Sowa
2016-12-12 21:23 ` Josef Bacik
2016-12-12 22:24 ` Josef Bacik
2016-12-13 20:51 ` Tom Herbert
2016-12-13 23:03 ` Craig Gallek
2016-12-13 23:32 ` Tom Herbert
2016-12-15 18:53 ` Josef Bacik
2016-12-15 22:39 ` Tom Herbert
2016-12-15 23:25 ` Craig Gallek
2016-12-16 0:07 ` Hannes Frederic Sowa
2016-12-16 14:54 ` Josef Bacik
2016-12-16 15:21 ` Josef Bacik
2016-12-16 22:08 ` Josef Bacik
2016-12-16 22:18 ` Tom Herbert
2016-12-16 22:50 ` Josef Bacik
2016-12-17 11:08 ` Hannes Frederic Sowa
2016-12-17 13:26 ` Josef Bacik
2016-12-20 1:56 ` David Miller
2016-12-20 2:07 ` Tom Herbert
2016-12-20 2:41 ` Eric Dumazet
2016-12-20 3:40 ` Josef Bacik
2016-12-20 4:52 ` Eric Dumazet
2016-12-20 4:59 ` Josef Bacik
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=1481335192.3663.0@smtp.office365.com \
--to=jbacik@fb.com \
--cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=hannes@stressinduktion.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tom@herbertland.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).