[PATCH AUTOSEL 5.10 24/25] blk-cgroup: Use cond_resched() when destroy blkgs

From: Sasha Levin
Date: Tue Feb 02 2021 - 10:57:06 EST


From: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

[ Upstream commit 6c635caef410aa757befbd8857c1eadde5cc22ed ]

On !PREEMPT kernel, we can get below softlockup when doing stress
testing with creating and destroying block cgroup repeatly. The
reason is it may take a long time to acquire the queue's lock in
the loop of blkcg_destroy_blkgs(), or the system can accumulate a
huge number of blkgs in pathological cases. We can add a need_resched()
check on each loop and release locks and do cond_resched() if true
to avoid this issue, since the blkcg_destroy_blkgs() is not called
from atomic contexts.

[ 4757.010308] watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#11 stuck for 94s!
[ 4757.010698] Call trace:
[ 4757.010700]  blkcg_destroy_blkgs+0x68/0x150
[ 4757.010701]  cgwb_release_workfn+0x104/0x158
[ 4757.010702]  process_one_work+0x1bc/0x3f0
[ 4757.010704]  worker_thread+0x164/0x468
[ 4757.010705]  kthread+0x108/0x138

Suggested-by: Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
block/blk-cgroup.c | 18 +++++++++++++-----
1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/block/blk-cgroup.c b/block/blk-cgroup.c
index 54fbe1e80cc41..f13688c4b9317 100644
--- a/block/blk-cgroup.c
+++ b/block/blk-cgroup.c
@@ -1017,6 +1017,8 @@ static void blkcg_css_offline(struct cgroup_subsys_state *css)
*/
void blkcg_destroy_blkgs(struct blkcg *blkcg)
{
+ might_sleep();
+
spin_lock_irq(&blkcg->lock);

while (!hlist_empty(&blkcg->blkg_list)) {
@@ -1024,14 +1026,20 @@ void blkcg_destroy_blkgs(struct blkcg *blkcg)
struct blkcg_gq, blkcg_node);
struct request_queue *q = blkg->q;

- if (spin_trylock(&q->queue_lock)) {
- blkg_destroy(blkg);
- spin_unlock(&q->queue_lock);
- } else {
+ if (need_resched() || !spin_trylock(&q->queue_lock)) {
+ /*
+ * Given that the system can accumulate a huge number
+ * of blkgs in pathological cases, check to see if we
+ * need to rescheduling to avoid softlockup.
+ */
spin_unlock_irq(&blkcg->lock);
- cpu_relax();
+ cond_resched();
spin_lock_irq(&blkcg->lock);
+ continue;
}
+
+ blkg_destroy(blkg);
+ spin_unlock(&q->queue_lock);
}

spin_unlock_irq(&blkcg->lock);
--
2.27.0