archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Daniel Harding <>
To: Thorsten Leemhuis <>,
	Pavel Begunkov <>,
	Jens Axboe <>
Subject: Re: [REGRESSION] lxc-stop hang on 5.17.x kernels
Date: Sun, 15 May 2022 21:34:35 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

On 5/15/22 11:20, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> On 04.05.22 08:54, Daniel Harding wrote:
>> On 5/3/22 17:14, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>>> On 5/3/22 08:37, Daniel Harding wrote:
>>>> [Resend with a smaller trace]
>>>> On 5/3/22 02:14, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>>>>> On 5/2/22 19:49, Daniel Harding wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/2/22 20:40, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/2/22 18:00, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/2/22 7:59 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/2/22 7:36 AM, Daniel Harding wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/2/22 16:26, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/2/22 7:17 AM, Daniel Harding wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> I use lxc-4.0.12 on Gentoo, built with io-uring support
>>>>>>>>>>>> (--enable-liburing), targeting liburing-2.1.  My kernel
>>>>>>>>>>>> config is a
>>>>>>>>>>>> very lightly modified version of Fedora's generic kernel
>>>>>>>>>>>> config. After
>>>>>>>>>>>> moving from the 5.16.x series to the 5.17.x kernel series, I
>>>>>>>>>>>> started
>>>>>>>>>>>> noticed frequent hangs in lxc-stop.  It doesn't happen 100%
>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> time, but definitely more than 50% of the time. Bisecting
>>>>>>>>>>>> narrowed
>>>>>>>>>>>> down the issue to commit
>>>>>>>>>>>> aa43477b040251f451db0d844073ac00a8ab66ee:
>>>>>>>>>>>> io_uring: poll rework. Testing indicates the problem is still
>>>>>>>>>>>> present
>>>>>>>>>>>> in 5.18-rc5. Unfortunately I do not have the expertise with the
>>>>>>>>>>>> codebases of either lxc or io-uring to try to debug the problem
>>>>>>>>>>>> further on my own, but I can easily apply patches to any of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> involved components (lxc, liburing, kernel) and rebuild for
>>>>>>>>>>>> testing or
>>>>>>>>>>>> validation.  I am also happy to provide any further
>>>>>>>>>>>> information that
>>>>>>>>>>>> would be helpful with reproducing or debugging the problem.
>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have a recipe to reproduce the hang? That would make it
>>>>>>>>>>> significantly easier to figure out.
>>>>>>>>>> I can reproduce it with just the following:
>>>>>>>>>>       sudo lxc-create --n lxc-test --template download --bdev
>>>>>>>>>> dir --dir /var/lib/lxc/lxc-test/rootfs -- -d ubuntu -r bionic
>>>>>>>>>> -a amd64
>>>>>>>>>>       sudo lxc-start -n lxc-test
>>>>>>>>>>       sudo lxc-stop -n lxc-test
>>>>>>>>>> The lxc-stop command never exits and the container continues
>>>>>>>>>> running.
>>>>>>>>>> If that isn't sufficient to reproduce, please let me know.
>>>>>>>>> Thanks, that's useful! I'm at a conference this week and hence have
>>>>>>>>> limited amount of time to debug, hopefully Pavel has time to
>>>>>>>>> take a look
>>>>>>>>> at this.
>>>>>>>> Didn't manage to reproduce. Can you try, on both the good and bad
>>>>>>>> kernel, to do:
>>>>>>> Same here, it doesn't reproduce for me
>>>>>> OK, sorry it wasn't something simple.
>>>>>>> # echo 1 > /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/events/io_uring/enable
>>>>>>>> run lxc-stop
>>>>>>>> # cp /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/trace ~/iou-trace
>>>>>>>> so we can see what's going on? Looking at the source, lxc is just
>>>>>>>> using
>>>>>>>> plain POLL_ADD, so I'm guessing it's not getting a notification
>>>>>>>> when it
>>>>>>>> expects to, or it's POLL_REMOVE not doing its job. If we have a
>>>>>>>> trace
>>>>>>>> from both a working and broken kernel, that might shed some light
>>>>>>>> on it.
>>>>>> It's late in my timezone, but I'll try to work on getting those
>>>>>> traces tomorrow.
>>>>> I think I got it, I've attached a trace.
>>>>> What's interesting is that it issues a multi shot poll but I don't
>>>>> see any kind of cancellation, neither cancel requests nor task/ring
>>>>> exit. Perhaps have to go look at lxc to see how it's supposed
>>>>> to work
>>>> Yes, that looks exactly like my bad trace.  I've attached good trace
>>>> (captured with linux-5.16.19) and a bad trace (captured with
>>>> linux-5.17.5).  These are the differences I noticed with just a
>>>> visual scan:
>>>> * Both traces have three io_uring_submit_sqe calls at the very
>>>> beginning, but in the good trace, there are further
>>>> io_uring_submit_sqe calls throughout the trace, while in the bad
>>>> trace, there are none.
>>>> * The good trace uses a mask of c3 for io_uring_task_add much more
>>>> often than the bad trace:  the bad trace uses a mask of c3 only for
>>>> the very last call to io_uring_task_add, but a mask of 41 for the
>>>> other calls.
>>>> * In the good trace, many of the io_uring_complete calls have a
>>>> result of 195, while in the bad trace, they all have a result of 1.
>>>> I don't know whether any of those things are significant or not, but
>>>> that's what jumped out at me.
>>>> I have also attached a copy of the script I used to generate the
>>>> traces.  If there is anything further I can to do help debug, please
>>>> let me know.
>>> Good observations! thanks for traces.
>>> It sounds like multi-shot poll requests were getting downgraded
>>> to one-shot, which is a valid behaviour and was so because we
>>> didn't fully support some cases. If that's the reason, than
>>> the userspace/lxc is misusing the ABI. At least, that's the
>>> working hypothesis for now, need to check lxc.
>> So, I looked at the lxc source code, and it appears to at least try to
>> handle the case of multi-shot being downgraded to one-shot.  I don't
>> know enough to know if the code is actually correct however:
> Hi, this is your Linux kernel regression tracker. Nothing happened here
> for round about ten days now afaics; or did the discussion continue
> somewhere else.
>  From what I gathered from this discussion is seems the root cause might
> be in LXC, but it was exposed by kernel change. That makes it sill a
> kernel regression that should be fixed; or is there a strong reason why
> we should let this one slip?

No, there hasn't been any discussion since the email you replied to.  
I've done a bit more testing on my end, but without anything 
conclusive.  The one thing I can say is that my testing shows that LXC 
does correctly handle multi-shot poll requests which were being 
downgraded to one-shot in 5.16.x kernels, which I think invalidates 
Pavel's theory.  In 5.17.x kernels, those same poll requests are no 
longer being downgraded to one-shot requests, and thus under 5.17.x LXC 
is no longer re-arming those poll requests (but also shouldn't need to, 
according to what is being returned by the kernel).  I don't know if 
this change in kernel behavior is related to the hang, or if it is just 
a side effect of other io-uring changes that made it into 5.17.  Nothing 
in the LXC's usage of io-uring seems obviously incorrect to me, but I am 
far from an expert.  I also did some work toward creating a simpler 
reproducer, without success (I was able to get a simple program using 
io-uring running, but never could get it to hang).  ISTM that this is 
still a kernel regression, unless someone can point out a definite fault 
in the way LXC is using io-uring.


Daniel Harding

  reply	other threads:[~2022-05-15 18:34 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-05-02 13:17 [REGRESSION] lxc-stop hang on 5.17.x kernels Daniel Harding
2022-05-02 13:26 ` Jens Axboe
2022-05-02 13:36   ` Daniel Harding
2022-05-02 13:59     ` Jens Axboe
2022-05-02 17:00       ` Jens Axboe
2022-05-02 17:40         ` Pavel Begunkov
2022-05-02 18:49           ` Daniel Harding
2022-05-02 23:14             ` Pavel Begunkov
2022-05-03  7:13               ` Daniel Harding
2022-05-03  7:37               ` Daniel Harding
2022-05-03 14:14                 ` Pavel Begunkov
2022-05-04  6:54                   ` Daniel Harding
2022-05-15  8:20                     ` Thorsten Leemhuis
2022-05-15 18:34                       ` Daniel Harding [this message]
2022-05-16 12:12                         ` Pavel Begunkov
2022-05-16 13:25                           ` Pavel Begunkov
2022-05-16 13:57                             ` Daniel Harding
2022-05-16 15:13                               ` Daniel Harding
2022-05-16 18:13                                 ` Pavel Begunkov
2022-05-17  8:19                                   ` Christian Brauner
2022-05-17 10:31                                     ` Pavel Begunkov
2022-05-16 18:17                                 ` Thorsten Leemhuis
2022-05-16 18:22                                   ` Jens Axboe
2022-05-16 18:34                                     ` Thorsten Leemhuis
2022-05-16 18:39                                       ` Jens Axboe
2022-05-16 19:07                                         ` Thorsten Leemhuis
2022-05-16 19:14                                           ` Jens Axboe

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:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \

* 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).