Re: [PATCH] watchdog/hardlockup: Avoid large stack frames in watchdog_hardlockup_check()
From: Michal Hocko
Date: Tue Aug 01 2023 - 11:26:52 EST
On Tue 01-08-23 07:16:15, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Aug 1, 2023 at 5:58 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon 31-07-23 09:17:59, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> > > After commit 77c12fc95980 ("watchdog/hardlockup: add a "cpu" param to
> > > watchdog_hardlockup_check()") we started storing a `struct cpumask` on
> > > the stack in watchdog_hardlockup_check(). On systems with
> > > CONFIG_NR_CPUS set to 8192 this takes up 1K on the stack. That
> > > triggers warnings with `CONFIG_FRAME_WARN` set to 1024.
> > >
> > > Instead of putting this `struct cpumask` on the stack, let's declare
> > > it as `static`. This has the downside of taking up 1K of memory all
> > > the time on systems with `CONFIG_NR_CPUS` to 8192, but on systems with
> > > smaller `CONFIG_NR_CPUS` it's not much emory (with 128 CPUs it's only
> > > 16 bytes of memory). Presumably anyone building a system with
> > > `CONFIG_NR_CPUS=8192` can afford the extra 1K of memory.
> > >
> > > NOTE: as part of this change, we no longer check the return value of
> > > trigger_single_cpu_backtrace(). While we could do this and only call
> > > cpumask_clear_cpu() if trigger_single_cpu_backtrace() didn't fail,
> > > that's probably not worth it. There's no reason to believe that
> > > trigger_cpumask_backtrace() will succeed at backtracing the CPU when
> > > trigger_single_cpu_backtrace() failed.
> > >
> > > Alternatives considered:
> > > - Use kmalloc with GFP_ATOMIC to allocate. I decided against this
> > > since relying on kmalloc when the system is hard locked up seems
> > > like a bad idea.
> > > - Change the arch_trigger_cpumask_backtrace() across all architectures
> > > to take an extra parameter to get the needed behavior. This seems
> > > like a lot of churn for a small savings.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 77c12fc95980 ("watchdog/hardlockup: add a "cpu" param to watchdog_hardlockup_check()")
> > > Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/r/202307310955.pLZDhpnl-lkp@xxxxxxxxx
> > > Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >
> > > kernel/watchdog.c | 14 +++++++-------
> > > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/kernel/watchdog.c b/kernel/watchdog.c
> > > index be38276a365f..19db2357969a 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/watchdog.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/watchdog.c
> > > @@ -151,9 +151,6 @@ void watchdog_hardlockup_check(unsigned int cpu, struct pt_regs *regs)
> > > */
> > > if (is_hardlockup(cpu)) {
> > > unsigned int this_cpu = smp_processor_id();
> > > - struct cpumask backtrace_mask;
> > > -
> > > - cpumask_copy(&backtrace_mask, cpu_online_mask);
> > >
> > > /* Only print hardlockups once. */
> > > if (per_cpu(watchdog_hardlockup_warned, cpu))
> > > @@ -167,10 +164,8 @@ void watchdog_hardlockup_check(unsigned int cpu, struct pt_regs *regs)
> > > show_regs(regs);
> > > else
> > > dump_stack();
> > > - cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, &backtrace_mask);
> > > } else {
> > > - if (trigger_single_cpu_backtrace(cpu))
> > > - cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, &backtrace_mask);
> > > + trigger_single_cpu_backtrace(cpu);
> > > }
> > >
> > > /*
> > > @@ -178,8 +173,13 @@ void watchdog_hardlockup_check(unsigned int cpu, struct pt_regs *regs)
> > > * hardlockups generating interleaving traces
> > > */
> > > if (sysctl_hardlockup_all_cpu_backtrace &&
> > > - !test_and_set_bit(0, &watchdog_hardlockup_all_cpu_dumped))
> > > + !test_and_set_bit(0, &watchdog_hardlockup_all_cpu_dumped)) {
> > > + static struct cpumask backtrace_mask;
> > > +
> > > + cpumask_copy(&backtrace_mask, cpu_online_mask);
> > > + cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, &backtrace_mask);
> > > trigger_cpumask_backtrace(&backtrace_mask);
> >
> > This looks rather wasteful to just copy the cpumask over to
> > backtrace_mask in nmi_trigger_cpumask_backtrace (which all but sparc
> > arches do AFAICS).
> >
> > Would it be possible to use arch_trigger_cpumask_backtrace(cpu_online_mask, false)
> > and special case cpu != this_cpu && sysctl_hardlockup_all_cpu_backtrace?
>
> So you're saying optimize the case where cpu == this_cpu and then have
> a special case (where we still copy) for cpu != this_cpu? I can do
> that if that's what people want, but (assuming I understand correctly)
> that's making the wrong tradeoff. Specifically, this code runs one
> time right as we're crashing and if it takes an extra millisecond to
> run it's not a huge deal. It feels better to avoid the special case
> and keep the code smaller.
>
> Let me know if I misunderstood.
I meant something like this (untested but it should give an idea what I
mean hopefully). Maybe it can be simplified even further. TBH I am not
entirely sure why cpu == this_cpu needs this special handling.
---
diff --git a/kernel/watchdog.c b/kernel/watchdog.c
index be38276a365f..0eedac9f1019 100644
--- a/kernel/watchdog.c
+++ b/kernel/watchdog.c
@@ -151,9 +151,7 @@ void watchdog_hardlockup_check(unsigned int cpu, struct pt_regs *regs)
*/
if (is_hardlockup(cpu)) {
unsigned int this_cpu = smp_processor_id();
- struct cpumask backtrace_mask;
-
- cpumask_copy(&backtrace_mask, cpu_online_mask);
+ bool dump_all = false;
/* Only print hardlockups once. */
if (per_cpu(watchdog_hardlockup_warned, cpu))
@@ -167,10 +165,6 @@ void watchdog_hardlockup_check(unsigned int cpu, struct pt_regs *regs)
show_regs(regs);
else
dump_stack();
- cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, &backtrace_mask);
- } else {
- if (trigger_single_cpu_backtrace(cpu))
- cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, &backtrace_mask);
}
/*
@@ -179,7 +173,12 @@ void watchdog_hardlockup_check(unsigned int cpu, struct pt_regs *regs)
*/
if (sysctl_hardlockup_all_cpu_backtrace &&
!test_and_set_bit(0, &watchdog_hardlockup_all_cpu_dumped))
- trigger_cpumask_backtrace(&backtrace_mask);
+ dump_all = true;
+
+ if (dump_all)
+ arch_trigger_cpumask_backtrace(cpu_online_mask, cpu != this_cpu);
+ else if (cpu != this_cpu)
+ trigger_single_cpu_backtrace(cpu);
if (hardlockup_panic)
nmi_panic(regs, "Hard LOCKUP");
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs