[PATCH v3] blk-cgroup: Use cond_resched() when destroy blkgs

[Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>]

On !PREEMPT kernel, we can get below softlockup when doing stress
testing with creating and destroying block cgroup repeatly. The
reason is it may take a long time to acquire the queue's lock in
the loop of blkcg_destroy_blkgs(), or the system can accumulate a
huge number of blkgs in pathological cases. We can add a need_resched()
check on each loop and release locks and do cond_resched() if true
to avoid this issue, since the blkcg_destroy_blkgs() is not called
from atomic contexts.

[ 4757.010308] watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#11 stuck for 94s!
[ 4757.010698] Call trace:
[ 4757.010700]  blkcg_destroy_blkgs+0x68/0x150
[ 4757.010701]  cgwb_release_workfn+0x104/0x158
[ 4757.010702]  process_one_work+0x1bc/0x3f0
[ 4757.010704]  worker_thread+0x164/0x468
[ 4757.010705]  kthread+0x108/0x138

Suggested-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>
---
Changes from v2:
 - Simplify logics suggested by Jens.

Changes from v1:
 - Add might_sleep() in blkcg_destroy_blkgs().
 - Add an explicitly need_resched() check before releasing lock.
 - Add some comments.
---
 block/blk-cgroup.c | 18 +++++++++++++-----
 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/block/blk-cgroup.c b/block/blk-cgroup.c
index 02ce205..4b4fcb5 100644
--- a/block/blk-cgroup.c
+++ b/block/blk-cgroup.c
@@ -1016,6 +1016,8 @@ static void blkcg_css_offline(struct cgroup_subsys_state *css)
  */
 void blkcg_destroy_blkgs(struct blkcg *blkcg)
 {
+	might_sleep();
+
 	spin_lock_irq(&blkcg->lock);
 
 	while (!hlist_empty(&blkcg->blkg_list)) {
@@ -1023,14 +1025,20 @@ void blkcg_destroy_blkgs(struct blkcg *blkcg)
 						struct blkcg_gq, blkcg_node);
 		struct request_queue *q = blkg->q;
 
-		if (spin_trylock(&q->queue_lock)) {
-			blkg_destroy(blkg);
-			spin_unlock(&q->queue_lock);
-		} else {
+		if (need_resched() || !spin_trylock(&q->queue_lock)) {
+			/*
+			 * Given that the system can accumulate a huge number
+			 * of blkgs in pathological cases, check to see if we
+			 * need to rescheduling to avoid softlockup.
+			 */
 			spin_unlock_irq(&blkcg->lock);
-			cpu_relax();
+			cond_resched();
 			spin_lock_irq(&blkcg->lock);
+			continue;
 		}
+
+		blkg_destroy(blkg);
+		spin_unlock(&q->queue_lock);
 	}
 
 	spin_unlock_irq(&blkcg->lock);
-- 
1.8.3.1