The patch below does not apply to the v5.4-stable tree. If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit id to stable@vger.kernel.org.
Thanks, Sasha
------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------
From 117932eea99b729ee5d12783601a4f7f5fd58a23 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Chen Ridong chenridong@huawei.com Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2024 11:24:56 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] cgroup/bpf: use a dedicated workqueue for cgroup bpf destruction
A hung_task problem shown below was found:
INFO: task kworker/0:0:8 blocked for more than 327 seconds. "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message. Workqueue: events cgroup_bpf_release Call Trace: <TASK> __schedule+0x5a2/0x2050 ? find_held_lock+0x33/0x100 ? wq_worker_sleeping+0x9e/0xe0 schedule+0x9f/0x180 schedule_preempt_disabled+0x25/0x50 __mutex_lock+0x512/0x740 ? cgroup_bpf_release+0x1e/0x4d0 ? cgroup_bpf_release+0xcf/0x4d0 ? process_scheduled_works+0x161/0x8a0 ? cgroup_bpf_release+0x1e/0x4d0 ? mutex_lock_nested+0x2b/0x40 ? __pfx_delay_tsc+0x10/0x10 mutex_lock_nested+0x2b/0x40 cgroup_bpf_release+0xcf/0x4d0 ? process_scheduled_works+0x161/0x8a0 ? trace_event_raw_event_workqueue_execute_start+0x64/0xd0 ? process_scheduled_works+0x161/0x8a0 process_scheduled_works+0x23a/0x8a0 worker_thread+0x231/0x5b0 ? __pfx_worker_thread+0x10/0x10 kthread+0x14d/0x1c0 ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 ret_from_fork+0x59/0x70 ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 ret_from_fork_asm+0x1b/0x30 </TASK>
This issue can be reproduced by the following pressuse test: 1. A large number of cpuset cgroups are deleted. 2. Set cpu on and off repeatly. 3. Set watchdog_thresh repeatly. The scripts can be obtained at LINK mentioned above the signature.
The reason for this issue is cgroup_mutex and cpu_hotplug_lock are acquired in different tasks, which may lead to deadlock. It can lead to a deadlock through the following steps: 1. A large number of cpusets are deleted asynchronously, which puts a large number of cgroup_bpf_release works into system_wq. The max_active of system_wq is WQ_DFL_ACTIVE(256). Consequently, all active works are cgroup_bpf_release works, and many cgroup_bpf_release works will be put into inactive queue. As illustrated in the diagram, there are 256 (in the acvtive queue) + n (in the inactive queue) works. 2. Setting watchdog_thresh will hold cpu_hotplug_lock.read and put smp_call_on_cpu work into system_wq. However step 1 has already filled system_wq, 'sscs.work' is put into inactive queue. 'sscs.work' has to wait until the works that were put into the inacvtive queue earlier have executed (n cgroup_bpf_release), so it will be blocked for a while. 3. Cpu offline requires cpu_hotplug_lock.write, which is blocked by step 2. 4. Cpusets that were deleted at step 1 put cgroup_release works into cgroup_destroy_wq. They are competing to get cgroup_mutex all the time. When cgroup_metux is acqured by work at css_killed_work_fn, it will call cpuset_css_offline, which needs to acqure cpu_hotplug_lock.read. However, cpuset_css_offline will be blocked for step 3. 5. At this moment, there are 256 works in active queue that are cgroup_bpf_release, they are attempting to acquire cgroup_mutex, and as a result, all of them are blocked. Consequently, sscs.work can not be executed. Ultimately, this situation leads to four processes being blocked, forming a deadlock.
system_wq(step1) WatchDog(step2) cpu offline(step3) cgroup_destroy_wq(step4) ... 2000+ cgroups deleted asyn 256 actives + n inactives __lockup_detector_reconfigure P(cpu_hotplug_lock.read) put sscs.work into system_wq 256 + n + 1(sscs.work) sscs.work wait to be executed warting sscs.work finish percpu_down_write P(cpu_hotplug_lock.write) ...blocking... css_killed_work_fn P(cgroup_mutex) cpuset_css_offline P(cpu_hotplug_lock.read) ...blocking... 256 cgroup_bpf_release mutex_lock(&cgroup_mutex); ..blocking...
To fix the problem, place cgroup_bpf_release works on a dedicated workqueue which can break the loop and solve the problem. System wqs are for misc things which shouldn't create a large number of concurrent work items. If something is going to generate >WQ_DFL_ACTIVE(256) concurrent work items, it should use its own dedicated workqueue.
Fixes: 4bfc0bb2c60e ("bpf: decouple the lifetime of cgroup_bpf from cgroup itself") Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # v5.3+ Link: https://lore.kernel.org/cgroups/e90c32d2-2a85-4f28-9154-09c7d320cb60@huawei.... Tested-by: Vishal Chourasia vishalc@linux.ibm.com Signed-off-by: Chen Ridong chenridong@huawei.com Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo tj@kernel.org --- kernel/bpf/cgroup.c | 19 ++++++++++++++++++- 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/cgroup.c b/kernel/bpf/cgroup.c index e7113d700b878..025d7e2214aeb 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/cgroup.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/cgroup.c @@ -24,6 +24,23 @@ DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_ARRAY_FALSE(cgroup_bpf_enabled_key, MAX_CGROUP_BPF_ATTACH_TYPE); EXPORT_SYMBOL(cgroup_bpf_enabled_key);
+/* + * cgroup bpf destruction makes heavy use of work items and there can be a lot + * of concurrent destructions. Use a separate workqueue so that cgroup bpf + * destruction work items don't end up filling up max_active of system_wq + * which may lead to deadlock. + */ +static struct workqueue_struct *cgroup_bpf_destroy_wq; + +static int __init cgroup_bpf_wq_init(void) +{ + cgroup_bpf_destroy_wq = alloc_workqueue("cgroup_bpf_destroy", 0, 1); + if (!cgroup_bpf_destroy_wq) + panic("Failed to alloc workqueue for cgroup bpf destroy.\n"); + return 0; +} +core_initcall(cgroup_bpf_wq_init); + /* __always_inline is necessary to prevent indirect call through run_prog * function pointer. */ @@ -334,7 +351,7 @@ static void cgroup_bpf_release_fn(struct percpu_ref *ref) struct cgroup *cgrp = container_of(ref, struct cgroup, bpf.refcnt);
INIT_WORK(&cgrp->bpf.release_work, cgroup_bpf_release); - queue_work(system_wq, &cgrp->bpf.release_work); + queue_work(cgroup_bpf_destroy_wq, &cgrp->bpf.release_work); }
/* Get underlying bpf_prog of bpf_prog_list entry, regardless if it's through