From: Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
To: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>,
Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
kasan-dev <kasan-dev@googlegroups.com>,
Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kfence: Avoid stalling work queue task without allocations
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2020 15:53:47 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CANpmjNNTDznf3hWFw5tD1+vGoN-p1VrR8BrQvSZqtVtUmFPF3A@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACT4Y+Y_QarAf_cCNPgRZiSEKty0eSusA1ZMuY61LoGP1RaVtg@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, 10 Nov 2020 at 15:25, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 2:53 PM Marco Elver <elver@google.com> wrote:
> > To toggle the allocation gates, we set up a delayed work that calls
> > toggle_allocation_gate(). Here we use wait_event() to await an
> > allocation and subsequently disable the static branch again. However, if
> > the kernel has stopped doing allocations entirely, we'd wait
> > indefinitely, and stall the worker task. This may also result in the
> > appropriate warnings if CONFIG_DETECT_HUNG_TASK=y.
> >
> > Therefore, introduce a 1 second timeout and use wait_event_timeout(). If
> > the timeout is reached, the static branch is disabled and a new delayed
> > work is scheduled to try setting up an allocation at a later time.
> >
> > Note that, this scenario is very unlikely during normal workloads once
> > the kernel has booted and user space tasks are running. It can, however,
> > happen during early boot after KFENCE has been enabled, when e.g.
> > running tests that do not result in any allocations.
> >
> > Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/CADYN=9J0DQhizAGB0-jz4HOBBh+05kMBXb4c0cXMS7Qi5NAJiw@mail.gmail.com
> > Reported-by: Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@linaro.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
> > ---
> > mm/kfence/core.c | 6 +++++-
> > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/kfence/core.c b/mm/kfence/core.c
> > index 9358f42a9a9e..933b197b8634 100644
> > --- a/mm/kfence/core.c
> > +++ b/mm/kfence/core.c
> > @@ -592,7 +592,11 @@ static void toggle_allocation_gate(struct work_struct *work)
> > /* Enable static key, and await allocation to happen. */
> > atomic_set(&allocation_gate, 0);
> > static_branch_enable(&kfence_allocation_key);
> > - wait_event(allocation_wait, atomic_read(&allocation_gate) != 0);
> > + /*
> > + * Await an allocation. Timeout after 1 second, in case the kernel stops
> > + * doing allocations, to avoid stalling this worker task for too long.
> > + */
> > + wait_event_timeout(allocation_wait, atomic_read(&allocation_gate) != 0, HZ);
>
> I wonder what happens if we get an allocation right when the timeout fires.
> Consider, another task already went to the slow path and is about to
> wake this task. This task wakes on timeout and subsequently enables
> static branch again. Now we can have 2 tasks on the slow path that
> both will wake this task. How will it be handled? Can it lead to some
> warnings or something?
wake_up() does not require tasks to be in the wait queue, nor is there
any requirement that it's exclusive (it takes the appropriate locks
unlike wake_up_locked()). One of the wake_up() calls will wake the
task, and the other is a noop. So this will work just fine.
Thanks,
-- Marco
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-11-10 14:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 63+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-11-10 13:53 [PATCH] kfence: Avoid stalling work queue task without allocations Marco Elver
2020-11-10 14:25 ` Dmitry Vyukov
2020-11-10 14:53 ` Marco Elver [this message]
2020-11-10 23:23 ` Anders Roxell
2020-11-11 8:29 ` Marco Elver
2020-11-11 13:38 ` Marco Elver
2020-11-11 18:05 ` Steven Rostedt
2020-11-11 18:23 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-11-11 18:34 ` Marco Elver
2020-11-11 19:21 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-11-11 20:21 ` Marco Elver
2020-11-12 0:11 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-11-12 12:49 ` Marco Elver
2020-11-12 16:14 ` Marco Elver
2020-11-12 17:54 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-11-12 18:12 ` Marco Elver
2020-11-12 20:00 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-11-13 11:06 ` Marco Elver
2020-11-13 17:20 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-11-13 17:57 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-11-17 10:52 ` Marco Elver
2020-11-17 18:29 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-11-18 22:56 ` Marco Elver
2020-11-18 23:38 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-11-19 12:53 ` Marco Elver
2020-11-19 15:14 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-11-19 17:02 ` Marco Elver
2020-11-19 18:48 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-11-19 19:38 ` linux-next: stall warnings and deadlock on Arm64 (was: [PATCH] kfence: Avoid stalling...) Marco Elver
2020-11-19 21:35 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-11-19 22:53 ` Will Deacon
2020-11-20 10:30 ` Mark Rutland
2020-11-20 14:03 ` Marco Elver
2020-11-23 19:32 ` Mark Rutland
2020-11-24 14:03 ` Marco Elver
2020-11-24 15:01 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-11-24 19:43 ` Mark Rutland
2020-11-24 20:32 ` Steven Rostedt
2020-11-24 19:30 ` Mark Rutland
2020-11-25 9:45 ` Marco Elver
2020-11-25 10:28 ` Mark Rutland
2020-11-20 14:19 ` Marco Elver
2020-11-20 14:39 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-11-20 15:22 ` Mark Rutland
2020-11-20 17:38 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-11-20 18:02 ` Mark Rutland
2020-11-20 18:57 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-11-20 15:26 ` Steven Rostedt
2020-11-20 18:17 ` Marco Elver
2020-11-20 18:57 ` Steven Rostedt
2020-11-20 19:16 ` Steven Rostedt
2020-11-20 19:22 ` Marco Elver
2020-11-20 19:27 ` [PATCH] kfence: Avoid stalling work queue task without allocations Steven Rostedt
2020-11-23 15:27 ` Marco Elver
2020-11-23 16:28 ` Steven Rostedt
2020-11-23 16:36 ` Steven Rostedt
2020-11-23 18:53 ` Marco Elver
2020-11-23 18:42 ` Steven Rostedt
2020-11-24 2:59 ` Boqun Feng
2020-11-24 3:44 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-11-11 18:21 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-11-11 15:01 ` Anders Roxell
2020-11-11 15:22 ` Marco Elver
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=CANpmjNNTDznf3hWFw5tD1+vGoN-p1VrR8BrQvSZqtVtUmFPF3A@mail.gmail.com \
--to=elver@google.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=anders.roxell@linaro.org \
--cc=dvyukov@google.com \
--cc=glider@google.com \
--cc=jannh@google.com \
--cc=kasan-dev@googlegroups.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.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).