Re: Question about kill a process group

From: Zhang Qiao
Date: Thu Apr 14 2022 - 07:40:56 EST

Next message: Arnd Bergmann: "Re: [PATCH RESEND 1/1] lib/Kconfig: remove DEBUG_PER_CPU_MAPS dependency for CPUMASK_OFFSTACK"
Previous message: Kurt Kanzenbach: "Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] tracing: Add documentation for trace clock tai"
In reply to: Eric W. Biederman: "Re: Question about kill a process group"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

在 2022/4/13 23:47, Eric W. Biederman 写道:
> Zhang Qiao <zhangqiao22@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> Gentle ping. Any comments on this problem?
>
> Is fork12 a new test?

The fork12 is a ltp testcase.
(https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/blob/master/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fork/fork12.c)

>
> Is there a real world use case that connects to this?
>
> How many children are being created in this test? Several million?

There are about 300,000+ processes.

>
> I would like to blame this on the old issue that tasklist_lock being
> a global lock. Given the number of child processes (as many as can be
> created) I don't think we are hurt much by using a global lock. The
> problem for solubility is that we have a lock.
>
> Fundamentally there must be a lock taken to maintain the parent's
> list of children.
>
> I only see SIGQUIT being called once in the parent process so that
> should not be an issue.

In fork12, every child will call kill(0, SIGQUIT) at cleanup().
There are a lot of kill(0, SIGQUIT) calls.

>
> There is a minor issue in fork12 that it calls exit(0) instead of
> _exit(0) in the children. Not the problem you are dealing with
> but it does look like it can be a distraction.
>
> I suspect the issue really is the thundering hurd of a million+
> processes synchronizing on a single lock.
>
> I don't think this is a hard lockup, just a global slow down.
> I expect everything will eventually exit.
>

But according to the vmcore, this is a hardlockup issue, and i think
there may be the following scenarios:

rl = read_lock(tasklist_lock);
ru = read_unlock(tasklist_lock);
wl = write_lock_irq(tasklist_lock);
wu = write_unlock_irq(tasklist_lock);

t0 t1 t2 t3 t4 t5 t6 t7 t8 ......
cpu0: rl<------------speed 1s ----------->ru // a fork12 call kill(0, SIGQUIT) at t0 on cpu0,
taking tasklist read lock at __kill_pgrp_info()

cpu1: wl<-----wait lock---------------->|<--get lock-->wu // a fork12 exit, and will disable irq, spin for waiting
tasklist write lock at exit_notify() util cpu0 unlock.

cpu2: rl<---- wait readlock---------------------.....-->ru // a fork12 call kill(0, SIGQUIT), spin for waiting cpu1 unlock.

cpu3: wl<-----------------------------......-------->wu // a fork12 do exit, spin for waiting cpu2 unlock...

.....

cpux: rl<-------------------......-------------------->ru // a fork12 call kill(0, SIGQUIT), spin for waiting other cpu unlock.

cpux+1: wl<-------------------......-------------------->wu // a fork12 do exit, spin for waiting cpux unlock. The cpu may
trigger a hardlockup if too many fork12 are spining to acquire
the tasklist read/write lock.

As above，the fork12 will take a lot of time to send the signal to the child process at
__kill_pgrp_info(), the whole process will take more than a second(more than 300000+ children).

when the fork12 hold tasklist read lock over one sencond at __kill_pgrp_info(), there may be a
large number of chilren do exit and kill(0, SIGQUIT), they will alternately acquire the tasklist
lock(queued spinlock) and spin on waitqueue.

Because the process that call __kill_pgrp_info() on the queue takes a lot of time, the exiting process
at the tail of waitqueue will wait for long time at exit_notify(), it will cause a hardlockup issue.

>
> To do something about this is going to take a deep and fundamental
> redesign of how we maintain process lists to handle a parent
> with millions of children well.
>
> Is there any real world reason to care about this case? Without
> real world motivation I am inclined to just note that this is

I just foune it while i ran ltp test.

thanks！

qiao.

> something that is handled poorly, and leave it as is.

>
> Eric
>
>>
>> 在 2022/4/2 10:22, Zhang Qiao 写道:
>>> ping...
>>>
>>> Any suggestions for this problem？
>>>
>>> thank!
>>> Qiao
>>>
>>>
>>> 在 2022/3/29 16:07, Zhang Qiao 写道:
>>>> hello everyone,
>>>>
>>>> I got a hradlockup panic when run the ltp syscall testcases.
>>>>
>>>> 348439.713178] NMI watchdog: Watchdog detected hard LOCKUP on cpu 32
>>>> [348439.713236] irq event stamp: 0
>>>> [348439.713237] hardirqs last enabled at (0): [<0000000000000000>] 0x0
>>>> [348439.713238] hardirqs last disabled at (0): [<ffffffff87cd1ea5>] copy_process+0x7f5/0x2160
>>>> [348439.713239] softirqs last enabled at (0): [<ffffffff87cd1ea5>] copy_process+0x7f5/0x2160
>>>> [348439.713240] softirqs last disabled at (0): [<0000000000000000>] 0x0
>>>> [348439.713241] CPU: 32 PID: 1151212 Comm: fork12 Kdump: loaded Tainted: G S 5.10.0+ #1
>>>> [348439.713242] Hardware name: Huawei RH2288H V3/BC11HGSA0, BIOS 3.35 10/20/2016
>>>> [348439.713243] RIP: 0010:queued_write_lock_slowpath+0x4d/0x80
>>>> [348439.713245] RSP: 0018:ffffa3a6bed4fe60 EFLAGS: 00000006
>>>> [348439.713246] RAX: 0000000000000500 RBX: ffffffff892060c0 RCX: 00000000000000ff
>>>> [348439.713247] RDX: 0000000000000500 RSI: 0000000000000100 RDI: ffffffff892060c0
>>>> [348439.713248] RBP: ffffffff892060c4 R08: 0000000000000001 R09: 0000000000000000
>>>> [348439.713249] R10: ffffa3a6bed4fde8 R11: 0000000000000000 R12: ffff96dfd3b68001
>>>> [348439.713250] R13: ffff96dfd3b68000 R14: ffff96dfd3b68c38 R15: ffff96e2cf1f51c0
>>>> [348439.713251] FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff96edbc200000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
>>>> [348439.713252] CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
>>>> [348439.713253] CR2: 0000000000416ea0 CR3: 0000002d91812004 CR4: 00000000001706e0
>>>> [348439.713254] Call Trace:
>>>> [348439.713255] do_raw_write_lock+0xa9/0xb0
>>>> [348439.713256] _raw_write_lock_irq+0x5a/0x70
>>>> [348439.713256] do_exit+0x429/0xd00
>>>> [348439.713257] do_group_exit+0x39/0xb0
>>>> [348439.713258] __x64_sys_exit_group+0x14/0x20
>>>> [348439.713259] do_syscall_64+0x33/0x40
>>>> [348439.713260] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
>>>> [348439.713260] RIP: 0033:0x7f59295a7066
>>>> [348439.713261] Code: Unable to access opcode bytes at RIP 0x7f59295a703c.
>>>> [348439.713262] RSP: 002b:00007fff0afeac38 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 00000000000000e7
>>>> [348439.713264] RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 00007f5929694530 RCX: 00007f59295a7066
>>>> [348439.713265] RDX: 0000000000000002 RSI: 000000000000003c RDI: 0000000000000002
>>>> [348439.713266] RBP: 0000000000000002 R08: 00000000000000e7 R09: ffffffffffffff80
>>>> [348439.713267] R10: 0000000000000002 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 00007f5929694530
>>>> [348439.713268] R13: 0000000000000001 R14: 00007f5929697f68 R15: 0000000000000000
>>>> [348439.713269] Kernel panic - not syncing: Hard LOCKUP
>>>> [348439.713270] CPU: 32 PID: 1151212 Comm: fork12 Kdump: loaded Tainted: G S 5.10.0+ #1
>>>> [348439.713272] Hardware name: Huawei RH2288H V3/BC11HGSA0, BIOS 3.35 10/20/2016
>>>> [348439.713272] Call Trace:
>>>> [348439.713273] <NMI>
>>>> [348439.713274] dump_stack+0x77/0x97
>>>> [348439.713275] panic+0x10c/0x2fb
>>>> [348439.713275] nmi_panic+0x35/0x40
>>>> [348439.713276] watchdog_hardlockup_check+0xeb/0x110
>>>> [348439.713277] __perf_event_overflow+0x52/0xf0
>>>> [348439.713278] handle_pmi_common+0x21a/0x320
>>>> [348439.713286] intel_pmu_handle_irq+0xc9/0x1b0
>>>> [348439.713287] perf_event_nmi_handler+0x24/0x40
>>>> [348439.713288] nmi_handle+0xc3/0x2a0
>>>> [348439.713289] default_do_nmi+0x49/0xf0
>>>> [348439.713289] exc_nmi+0x146/0x160
>>>> [348439.713290] end_repeat_nmi+0x16/0x55
>>>> [348439.713291] RIP: 0010:queued_write_lock_slowpath+0x4d/0x80
>>>> [348439.713293] RSP: 0018:ffffa3a6bed4fe60 EFLAGS: 00000006
>>>> [348439.713295] RAX: 0000000000000500 RBX: ffffffff892060c0 RCX: 00000000000000ff
>>>> [348439.713296] RDX: 0000000000000500 RSI: 0000000000000100 RDI: ffffffff892060c0
>>>> [348439.713296] RBP: ffffffff892060c4 R08: 0000000000000001 R09: 0000000000000000
>>>> [348439.713297] R10: ffffa3a6bed4fde8 R11: 0000000000000000 R12: ffff96dfd3b68001
>>>> [348439.713298] R13: ffff96dfd3b68000 R14: ffff96dfd3b68c38 R15: ffff96e2cf1f51c0
>>>> [348439.713300] </NMI>
>>>> [348439.713301] do_raw_write_lock+0xa9/0xb0
>>>> [348439.713302] _raw_write_lock_irq+0x5a/0x70
>>>> [348439.713303] do_exit+0x429/0xd00
>>>> [348439.713303] do_group_exit+0x39/0xb0
>>>> [348439.713304] __x64_sys_exit_group+0x14/0x20
>>>> [348439.713305] do_syscall_64+0x33/0x40
>>>> [348439.713306] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
>>>> [348439.713307] RIP: 0033:0x7f59295a7066
>>>> [348439.713308] Code: Unable to access opcode bytes at RIP 0x7f59295a703c.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> when analyzing vmcore, i notice lots of fork12 processes are waiting for tasklist read lock or write
>>>> lock (see the attachment file all_cpu_stacks.log)，and every fork12 process(belongs to the same
>>>> process group) call kill(0, SIGQUIT) in their signal handler()[1], it will traverse all the processes in the
>>>> same process group and send signal to them one by one, which is a very time-costly work and hold tasklist
>>>> read lock long time. At the same time, other processes will exit after receive signal, they try to get
>>>> the tasklist write lock at exit_notify().
>>>>
>>>> [1] fork12 testcase: https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/blob/master/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fork/fork12.c
>>>>
>>>> some processes call kill(0, SIGQUIT), wait for tasklist read lock:
>>>>
>>>> #5 [ffff972a9b16fd78] native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath at ffffffff9931ed47
>>>> #6 [ffff972a9b16fd78] queued_read_lock_slowpath at ffffffff99320a58
>>>> #7 [ffff972a9b16fd90] do_wait at ffffffff992bc17d
>>>> #8 [ffff972a9b16fdd0] kernel_wait4 at ffffffff992bd88d
>>>> #9 [ffff972a9b16fe58] __do_sys_wait4 at ffffffff992bd9e5
>>>> #10 [ffff972a9b16ff30] do_syscall_64 at ffffffff9920432d
>>>> #11 [ffff972a9b16ff50] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe at ffffffff99c000ad
>>>>
>>>> As the same time, some processes are exiting, wait for tasklist write lock:
>>>>
>>>> #5 [ffff972aa49a7e60] native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath at ffffffff9931ecb0
>>>> #6 [ffff972aa49a7e60] queued_write_lock_slowpath at ffffffff993209e4
>>>> #7 [ffff972aa49a7e78] do_raw_write_lock at ffffffff99320834
>>>> #8 [ffff972aa49a7e88] do_exit at ffffffff992bcd78
>>>> #9 [ffff972aa49a7f00] do_group_exit at ffffffff992bd719
>>>> #10 [ffff972aa49a7f28] __x64_sys_exit_group at ffffffff992bd7a4
>>>> #11 [ffff972aa49a7f30] do_syscall_64 at ffffffff9920432d
>>>> #12 [ffff972aa49a7f50] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe at ffffffff99c000ad
>>>>
>>>> In this scenario,there are lots of process are waiting for tasklist read lock or the tasklist
>>>> write lock, so they will queue. if the wait queue is long enough, it might cause a hardlockup issue when a
>>>> process wait for taking the write lock at exit_notify().
>>>>
>>>> I tried to solve this problem by avoiding traversing the process group multiple times when kill(0, xxxx)
>>>> is called multiple times form the same process group, but it doesn't look like a good solution.
>>>>
>>>> Is there any good idea for fixing this problem ?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks!
>>>>
>>>> Qiao
>>>> .
>>>>
>>> .
>>>
> .
>

Next message: Arnd Bergmann: "Re: [PATCH RESEND 1/1] lib/Kconfig: remove DEBUG_PER_CPU_MAPS dependency for CPUMASK_OFFSTACK"
Previous message: Kurt Kanzenbach: "Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] tracing: Add documentation for trace clock tai"
In reply to: Eric W. Biederman: "Re: Question about kill a process group"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]