Re: Advice on cgroup rstat lock

[Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@kernel.org>]

On 09/04/2024 18.59, Waiman Long wrote:
> 
> On 4/9/24 12:45, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 8:37 AM Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> On 4/9/24 07:08, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
>>>> Let move this discussion upstream.
>>>>
>>>> On 22/03/2024 19.32, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
>>>>> [..]
>>>>>>> There was a couple of series that made all calls to
>>>>>>> cgroup_rstat_flush() sleepable, which allows the lock to be dropped
>>>>>>> (and IRQs enabled) in between CPU iterations. This fixed a similar
>>>>>>> problem that we used to face (except in our case, we saw hard 
>>>>>>> lockups
>>>>>>> in extreme scenarios):
>>>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20230330191801.1967435-1-yosryahmed@google.com/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230421174020.2994750-1-yosryahmed@google.com/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've only done the 6.6 backport, and these were in 6.5/6.6.
>>>> Given I have these in my 6.6 kernel. You are basically saying I should
>>>> be able to avoid IRQ-disable for the lock, right?
>>>>
>>>> My main problem with the global cgroup_rstat_lock[3] is it disables 
>>>> IRQs
>>>> and (thereby also) BH/softirq (spin_lock_irq).  This cause production
>>>> issues elsewhere, e.g. we are seeing network softirq "not-able-to-run"
>>>> latency issues (debug via softirq_net_latency.bt [5]).
>>>>
>>>>    [3]
>>>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.9-rc3/source/kernel/cgroup/rstat.c#L10
>>>>    [5]
>>>> https://github.com/xdp-project/xdp-project/blob/master/areas/latency/softirq_net_latency.bt
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> And between 6.1 to 6.6 we did observe an improvement in this area.
>>>>>> (Maybe I don't have to do the 6.1 backport if the 6.6 release plan
>>>>>> progress)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've had a chance to get running in prod for 6.6 backport.
>>>>>> As you can see in attached grafana heatmap pictures, we do observe an
>>>>>> improved/reduced softirq wait time.
>>>>>> These softirq "not-able-to-run" outliers is *one* of the prod 
>>>>>> issues we
>>>>>> observed.  As you can see, I still have other areas to improve/fix.
>>>>> I am not very familiar with such heatmaps, but I am glad there is an
>>>>> improvement with 6.6 and the backports. Let me know if there is
>>>>> anything I could do to help with your effort.
>>>> The heatmaps give me an overview, but I needed a debugging tool, so I
>>>> developed some bpftrace scripts [1][2] I'm running on production.
>>>> To measure how long time we hold the cgroup rstat lock (results below).
>>>> Adding ACME and Daniel as I hope there is an easier way to measure lock
>>>> hold time and congestion. Notice tricky release/yield in
>>>> cgroup_rstat_flush_locked[4].
>>>>
>>>> My production results on 6.6 with backported patches (below signature)
>>>> vs a our normal 6.6 kernel, with script [2]. The `@lock_time_hist_ns`
>>>> shows how long time the lock+IRQs were disabled (taking into account it
>>>> can be released in the loop [4]).
>>>>
>>>> Patched kernel:
>>>>
>>>> 21:49:02  time elapsed: 43200 sec
>>>> @lock_time_hist_ns:
>>>> [2K, 4K)              61 |      |
>>>> [4K, 8K)             734 |      |
>>>> [8K, 16K)         121500 |@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@      |
>>>> [16K, 32K)        385714
>>>> |@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@|
>>>> [32K, 64K)        145600 |@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@      |
>>>> [64K, 128K)       156873 |@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@      |
>>>> [128K, 256K)      261027 |@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ |
>>>> [256K, 512K)      291986 
>>>> |@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@      |
>>>> [512K, 1M)        101859 |@@@@@@@@@@@@@      |
>>>> [1M, 2M)           19866 |@@      |
>>>> [2M, 4M)           10146 |@      |
>>>> [4M, 8M)           30633 |@@@@      |
>>>> [8M, 16M)          40365 |@@@@@      |
>>>> [16M, 32M)         21650 |@@      |
>>>> [32M, 64M)          5842 |      |
>>>> [64M, 128M)            8 |      |
>>>>
>>>> And normal 6.6 kernel:
>>>>
>>>> 21:48:32  time elapsed: 43200 sec
>>>> @lock_time_hist_ns:
>>>> [1K, 2K)              25 |      |
>>>> [2K, 4K)            1146 |      |
>>>> [4K, 8K)           59397 |@@@@      |
>>>> [8K, 16K)         571528 
>>>> |@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@      |
>>>> [16K, 32K)        542648 |@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@      |
>>>> [32K, 64K)        202810 |@@@@@@@@@@@@@      |
>>>> [64K, 128K)       134564 |@@@@@@@@@      |
>>>> [128K, 256K)       72870 |@@@@@      |
>>>> [256K, 512K)       56914 |@@@      |
>>>> [512K, 1M)         83140 |@@@@@      |
>>>> [1M, 2M)          170514 |@@@@@@@@@@@      |
>>>> [2M, 4M)          396304 |@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@      |
>>>> [4M, 8M)          755537
>>>> |@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@|
>>>> [8M, 16M)         231222 |@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@      |
>>>> [16M, 32M)         76370 |@@@@@      |
>>>> [32M, 64M)          1043 |      |
>>>> [64M, 128M)           12 |      |
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For the unpatched kernel we see more events in 4ms to 8ms bucket than
>>>> any other bucket.
>>>> For patched kernel, we clearly see a significant reduction of events in
>>>> the 4 ms to 64 ms area, but we still have some events in this area.  
>>>> I'm
>>>> very happy to see these patches improves the situation.  But for 
>>>> network
>>>> processing I'm not happy to see events in area 16ms to 128ms area.  If
>>>> we can just avoid disabling IRQs/softirq for the lock, I would be 
>>>> happy.
>>>>
>>>> How far can we go... could cgroup_rstat_lock be converted to a mutex?
 >>>
>>> The cgroup_rstat_lock was originally a mutex. It was converted to a
>>> spinlock in commit 0fa294fb1985 ("group: Replace cgroup_rstat_mutex with
>>> a spinlock"). Irq was disabled to enable calling from atomic context.
>>> Since commit 0a2dc6ac3329 ("cgroup: remove
>>> cgroup_rstat_flush_atomic()"), the rstat API hadn't been called from
>>> atomic context anymore. Theoretically, we could change it back to a
>>> mutex or not disabling interrupt. That will require that the API cannot
>>> be called from atomic context going forward.
 >>>
>> I think we should avoid flushing from atomic contexts going forward
>> anyway tbh. It's just too much work to do with IRQs disabled, and we
>> observed hard lockups before in worst case scenarios.
>>

Appreciate the historic commits as documentation for how the code
evolved.  Sounds like we agree that the IRQ-disable can be lifted,
at-least between the three of us.

>> I think one problem that was discussed before is that flushing is
>> exercised from multiple contexts and could have very high concurrency
>> (e.g. from reclaim when the system is under memory pressure). With a
>> mutex, the flusher could sleep with the mutex held and block other
>> threads for a while.
>>

Fair point, so in first iteration we keep the spin_lock but don't do the
IRQ disable.  I already have a upstream devel kernel doing this in my
testlab, but I need to test this in prod to see the effects.  Can you
recommend a test I should run in my testlab?

I'm also looking at adding some instrumentation, as my bpftrace
script[2] need to be adjusted to every binary build.
Still hoping ACME will give me an easier approach to measuring lock wait
and hold time? (without having to instrument *all* lock in system).


  [2] 
https://github.com/xdp-project/xdp-project/blob/master/areas/latency/cgroup_rstat_latency_steroids.bt


>> I vaguely recall experimenting locally with changing that lock into a
>> mutex and not liking the results, but I can't remember much more. I
>> could be misremembering though.
>>
>> Currently, the lock is dropped in cgroup_rstat_flush_locked() between
>> CPU iterations if rescheduling is needed or the lock is being
>> contended (i.e. spin_needbreak() returns true). I had always wondered
>> if it's possible to introduce a similar primitive for IRQs? We could
>> also drop the lock (and re-enable IRQs) if IRQs are pending then.
> 
> I am not sure if there is a way to check if a hardirq is pending, but we 
> do have a local_softirq_pending() helper.

The local_softirq_pending() might work well for me, as this is our prod
problem, that CPU local pending softirq's are getting starved.

In production another problematic (but rarely occurring issue) is when
several CPUs contend on this lock.  Yosry's recent work/patches have
already reduced the chances of this happening (thanks), BUT it still can
and does happen.
A simple solution to this, would be to do a spin_trylock() in
cgroup_rstat_flush(), and exit if we cannot get the lock, because we
know someone else will do the work.
I expect someone to complain here, as cgroup_rstat_flush() takes a
cgroup argument, so I might starve updates on some other cgroup. I
wonder if I can simply check if cgroup->rstat_flush_next is not NULL, to
determine if this cgroup is the one currently being processed?

--Jesper