io-wq: remove GFP_ATOMIC allocation off schedule out path
Daniel reports that the v5.14-rc4-rt4 kernel throws a BUG when running stress-ng: | [ 90.202543] BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/locking/spinlock_rt.c:35 | [ 90.202549] in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 1, non_block: 0, pid: 2047, name: iou-wrk-2041 | [ 90.202555] CPU: 5 PID: 2047 Comm: iou-wrk-2041 Tainted: G W 5.14.0-rc4-rt4+ #89 | [ 90.202559] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS 1.14.0-2 04/01/2014 | [ 90.202561] Call Trace: | [ 90.202577] dump_stack_lvl+0x34/0x44 | [ 90.202584] ___might_sleep.cold+0x87/0x94 | [ 90.202588] rt_spin_lock+0x19/0x70 | [ 90.202593] ___slab_alloc+0xcb/0x7d0 | [ 90.202598] ? newidle_balance.constprop.0+0xf5/0x3b0 | [ 90.202603] ? dequeue_entity+0xc3/0x290 | [ 90.202605] ? io_wqe_dec_running.isra.0+0x98/0xe0 | [ 90.202610] ? pick_next_task_fair+0xb9/0x330 | [ 90.202612] ? __schedule+0x670/0x1410 | [ 90.202615] ? io_wqe_dec_running.isra.0+0x98/0xe0 | [ 90.202618] kmem_cache_alloc_trace+0x79/0x1f0 | [ 90.202621] io_wqe_dec_running.isra.0+0x98/0xe0 | [ 90.202625] io_wq_worker_sleeping+0x37/0x50 | [ 90.202628] schedule+0x30/0xd0 | [ 90.202630] schedule_timeout+0x8f/0x1a0 | [ 90.202634] ? __bpf_trace_tick_stop+0x10/0x10 | [ 90.202637] io_wqe_worker+0xfd/0x320 | [ 90.202641] ? finish_task_switch.isra.0+0xd3/0x290 | [ 90.202644] ? io_worker_handle_work+0x670/0x670 | [ 90.202646] ? io_worker_handle_work+0x670/0x670 | [ 90.202649] ret_from_fork+0x22/0x30 which is due to the RT kernel not liking a GFP_ATOMIC allocation inside a raw spinlock. Besides that not working on RT, doing any kind of allocation from inside schedule() is kind of nasty and should be avoided if at all possible. This particular path happens when an io-wq worker goes to sleep, and we need a new worker to handle pending work. We currently allocate a small data item to hold the information we need to create a new worker, but we can instead include this data in the io_worker struct itself and just protect it with a single bit lock. We only really need one per worker anyway, as we will have run pending work between to sleep cycles. https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210804082418.fbibprcwtzyt5qax@beryllium.lan/Reported-by: Daniel Wagner <dwagner@suse.de> Tested-by: Daniel Wagner <dwagner@suse.de> Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Showing
Please register or sign in to comment