BPF: unbounded bpf_map_free_deferred problem

* BPF: unbounded bpf_map_free_deferred problem
       [not found]             ` <e4767b84-05a4-07c0-811b-b3a08cad2f43@ozlabs.ru>
@ 2021-01-23  0:39               ` Tetsuo Handa
  2021-01-23  3:27                 ` Cong Wang
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Tetsuo Handa @ 2021-01-23  0:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: netdev, bpf, Alexei Starovoitov, Daniel Borkmann, Andrii Nakryiko
  Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List, Tejun Heo, Alexey Kardashevskiy,
	Dmitry Vyukov

Hello, BPF developers.

Alexey Kardashevskiy is reporting that system_wq gets stuck due to flooding of
unbounded bpf_map_free_deferred work. Use of WQ_MEM_RECLAIM | WQ_HIGHPRI | WQ_UNBOUND
workqueue did not solve this problem. Is it possible that a refcount leak somewhere
preventing bpf_map_free_deferred from completing? Please see
https://lkml.kernel.org/r/CACT4Y+Z+kwPM=WUzJ-e359PWeLLqmF0w4Yxp1spzZ=+J0ekrag@mail.gmail.com .

On 2021/01/23 7:53, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> 
> 
> On 23/01/2021 02:30, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>> On 2021/01/22 22:28, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>>> On 2021/01/22 21:10, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 1:03 PM Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@ozlabs.ru> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 22/01/2021 21:30, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>>>>>> On 2021/01/22 18:16, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>>>>>>> The reproducer only does 2 bpf syscalls, so something is slowly leaking in bpf.
>>>>>>> My first suspect would be one of these. Since workqueue is async, it
>>>>>>> may cause such slow drain that happens only when tasks are spawned
>>>>>>> fast. I don't know if there is a procfs/debugfs introspection file to
>>>>>>> monitor workqueue lengths to verify this hypothesis.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you can reproduce locally, you can call show_workqueue_state()
>>>>>> (part of SysRq-t) when hitting the limit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
>>>>>> +++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
>>>>>> @@ -1277,6 +1277,7 @@ register_lock_class(struct lockdep_map *lock, unsigned int subclass, int force)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>                   print_lockdep_off("BUG: MAX_LOCKDEP_KEYS too low!");
>>>>>>                   dump_stack();
>>>>>> +               show_workqueue_state();
>>>>>>                   return NULL;
>>>>>>           }
>>>>>>           nr_lock_classes++;
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is the result:
>>>>> https://pastebin.com/rPn0Cytu
>>>>
>>>> Do you mind posting this publicly?
>>>> Yes, it seems that bpf_map_free_deferred is the problem (11138
>>>> outstanding callbacks).
>>>>
>>>
>>> Wow. Horribly stuck queue. I guess BPF wants to try WQ created by
>>>
>>>    alloc_workqueue("bpf_free_wq", WQ_MEM_RECLAIM | WQ_HIGHPRI | WQ_UNBOUND, 0);
>>>
>>> rather than system_wq . You can add Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> for WQ.
>>>
>>> Anyway, please post your result to ML.
> 
> 
> 
> https://pastebin.com/JfrmzguK is with the patch below applied. Seems less output. Interestingly when I almost hit "send", OOM kicked in and tried killing a bunch of "maxlockdep" processes (my test case):
> 
> [  891.037315] [  31007]     0 31007      281        5    49152        0          1000 maxlockdep
> [  891.037540] [  31009]     0 31009      281        5    49152        0          1000 maxlockdep
> [  891.037760] [  31012]     0 31012      281        5    49152        0          1000 maxlockdep
> [  891.037980] [  31013]     0 31013      281        5    47104        0             0 maxlockdep
> [  891.038210] [  31014]     0 31014      281        5    49152        0          1000 maxlockdep
> [  891.038429] [  31018]     0 31018      281        5    47104        0             0 maxlockdep
> [  891.038652] [  31019]     0 31019      281        5    49152        0          1000 maxlockdep
> [  891.038874] [  31020]     0 31020      281        5    49152        0          1000 maxlockdep
> [  891.039095] [  31021]     0 31021      281        5    49152        0          1000 maxlockdep
> [  891.039317] [  31022]     0 31022      281        5    47104        0             0 maxlockdep
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And (re)adding LKML and Tejun as suggested. Thanks,
> 
> 
>>>
>>
>> Does this patch (which is only compile tested) reduce number of pending works
>> when hitting "BUG: MAX_LOCKDEP_KEYS too low!" ?
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/bpf.h b/include/linux/bpf.h
>> index 07cb5d15e743..c6c6902090f0 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/bpf.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/bpf.h
>> @@ -41,6 +41,7 @@ struct bpf_local_storage_map;
>>   struct kobject;
>>   struct mem_cgroup;
>>   +extern struct workqueue_struct *bpf_free_wq;
>>   extern struct idr btf_idr;
>>   extern spinlock_t btf_idr_lock;
>>   extern struct kobject *btf_kobj;
>> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/arraymap.c b/kernel/bpf/arraymap.c
>> index 1f8453343bf2..8b1cf6aab089 100644
>> --- a/kernel/bpf/arraymap.c
>> +++ b/kernel/bpf/arraymap.c
>> @@ -994,7 +994,7 @@ static void prog_array_map_clear(struct bpf_map *map)
>>       struct bpf_array_aux *aux = container_of(map, struct bpf_array,
>>                            map)->aux;
>>       bpf_map_inc(map);
>> -    schedule_work(&aux->work);
>> +    queue_work(bpf_free_wq, &aux->work);
>>   }
>>     static struct bpf_map *prog_array_map_alloc(union bpf_attr *attr)
>> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/cgroup.c b/kernel/bpf/cgroup.c
>> index 96555a8a2c54..f272844163df 100644
>> --- a/kernel/bpf/cgroup.c
>> +++ b/kernel/bpf/cgroup.c
>> @@ -160,7 +160,7 @@ 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(bpf_free_wq, &cgrp->bpf.release_work);
>>   }
>>     /* Get underlying bpf_prog of bpf_prog_list entry, regardless if it's through
>> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/core.c b/kernel/bpf/core.c
>> index 261f8692d0d2..9d76c0d77687 100644
>> --- a/kernel/bpf/core.c
>> +++ b/kernel/bpf/core.c
>> @@ -34,6 +34,15 @@
>>   #include <linux/log2.h>
>>   #include <asm/unaligned.h>
>>   +struct workqueue_struct *bpf_free_wq;
>> +
>> +static int __init bpf_free_wq_init(void)
>> +{
>> +    bpf_free_wq = alloc_workqueue("bpf_free_wq", WQ_MEM_RECLAIM | WQ_HIGHPRI | WQ_UNBOUND, 0);
>> +    return 0;
>> +}
>> +subsys_initcall(bpf_free_wq_init);
>> +
>>   /* Registers */
>>   #define BPF_R0    regs[BPF_REG_0]
>>   #define BPF_R1    regs[BPF_REG_1]
>> @@ -2152,7 +2161,7 @@ void bpf_prog_free(struct bpf_prog *fp)
>>       if (aux->dst_prog)
>>           bpf_prog_put(aux->dst_prog);
>>       INIT_WORK(&aux->work, bpf_prog_free_deferred);
>> -    schedule_work(&aux->work);
>> +    queue_work(bpf_free_wq, &aux->work);
>>   }
>>   EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(bpf_prog_free);
>>   diff --git a/kernel/bpf/cpumap.c b/kernel/bpf/cpumap.c
>> index 747313698178..6507cc8263fc 100644
>> --- a/kernel/bpf/cpumap.c
>> +++ b/kernel/bpf/cpumap.c
>> @@ -515,7 +515,7 @@ static void __cpu_map_entry_replace(struct bpf_cpu_map *cmap,
>>       if (old_rcpu) {
>>           call_rcu(&old_rcpu->rcu, __cpu_map_entry_free);
>>           INIT_WORK(&old_rcpu->kthread_stop_wq, cpu_map_kthread_stop);
>> -        schedule_work(&old_rcpu->kthread_stop_wq);
>> +        queue_work(bpf_free_wq, &old_rcpu->kthread_stop_wq);
>>       }
>>   }
>>   diff --git a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
>> index e5999d86c76e..084b903b4ee6 100644
>> --- a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
>> +++ b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
>> @@ -477,7 +477,7 @@ static void __bpf_map_put(struct bpf_map *map, bool do_idr_lock)
>>           bpf_map_free_id(map, do_idr_lock);
>>           btf_put(map->btf);
>>           INIT_WORK(&map->work, bpf_map_free_deferred);
>> -        schedule_work(&map->work);
>> +        queue_work(bpf_free_wq, &map->work);
>>       }
>>   }
>>   @@ -2343,7 +2343,7 @@ void bpf_link_put(struct bpf_link *link)
>>         if (in_atomic()) {
>>           INIT_WORK(&link->work, bpf_link_put_deferred);
>> -        schedule_work(&link->work);
>> +        queue_work(bpf_free_wq, &link->work);
>>       } else {
>>           bpf_link_free(link);
>>       }
>>
> 

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread