lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Apr]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [BUG] cgroup/workques/fork: deadlock when moving cgroups
On Mon 18-04-16 16:40:23, Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Fri 2016-04-15 10:38:15, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > Anyway, before we go that way, can we at least consider the possibility
> > > of removing the kworker creation dependency on the global rwsem? AFAIU
> > > this locking was added because of the pid controller. Do we even care
> > > about something as volatile as kworkers in the pid controller?
> >
> > It's not just pid controller and the global percpu locking has lower
> > hotpath overhead. We can try to exclude kworkers out of the locking
> > but that can get really nasty and there are already attempts to add
> > cgroup support to workqueue. Will think more about it.
>
> I have played with this idea on Friday. Please, find below a POC.
> The worker detection works and the deadlock is removed. But workers
> do not appear in the root cgroups. I am not familiar with the cgroups
> stuff, so this part is much more difficult for me.
>
> I send it because it might give you an idea when discussing it
> on LSF. Please, let me know if I should continue on this way or
> if it looks too crazy already now.
>
>
> >From ca1420926f990892a914d64046ee8d273b876f30 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
> Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 14:17:17 +0200
> Subject: [POC PATCH] cgroups/workqueus: Do not block forking workqueues by cgroups
> lock
>
> This is a POC how to delay cgroups operations when forking workqueue
> workers. Workqueues are used by some cgroups operations, for example,
> lru_add_drain_all(). Creating new worker might help to avoid a deadlock.
>
> This patch adds a way to detect whether a workqueue worker is being
> forked, see detect_wq_worker(). For this it needs to make struct
> kthread_create_info and the main worker_thread public. As a consequence,
> it renames worker_thread to wq_worker_thread.
>
> Next, cgroups_fork() just initializes the cgroups fields in task_struct.
> It does not really need to be guarded by cgroup_threadgroup_rwsem.
>
> cgroup_threadgroup_rwsem is taken later when we check if the fork
> is allowed and when we copy the cgroups setting. But these two
> operations are skipped for workers.
>
> The result is that workers are not blocked by any cgroups operation
> but they do not appear in the root cgroups.
>
> There is a preparation of cgroup_delayed_post_fork() that might put
> the workers into the root cgroups. It is just a copy of
> cgroup_post_fork() where "kthreadd_task" is hardcoded. It is not yet
> called. Also it is not protected against other cgroups operations.
> ---
> include/linux/kthread.h | 14 +++++++++++++
> include/linux/workqueue.h | 1 +
> kernel/cgroup.c | 53 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> kernel/fork.c | 36 +++++++++++++++++++++++---------
> kernel/kthread.c | 14 -------------
> kernel/workqueue.c | 9 ++++----
> 6 files changed, 98 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)

This feels too overcomplicated. Can we simply drop the locking in
copy_process if the current == ktreadadd? Would something actually
break?
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-04-19 16:21    [W:0.153 / U:2.756 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site