From: Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
Shawn Bohrer <shawn.bohrer@gmail.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>, <cgroups@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Markus Blank-Burian <burian@muenster.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH cgroup/for-3.13-fixes] cgroup: use a dedicated workqueue for cgroup destruction
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 09:16:39 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5292A4F7.3030105@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20131122221752.GC8981@mtj.dyndns.org>
> Since be44562613851 ("cgroup: remove synchronize_rcu() from
> cgroup_diput()"), cgroup destruction path makes use of workqueue. css
> freeing is performed from a work item from that point on and a later
> commit, ea15f8ccdb430 ("cgroup: split cgroup destruction into two
> steps"), moves css offlining to workqueue too.
>
> As cgroup destruction isn't depended upon for memory reclaim, the
> destruction work items were put on the system_wq; unfortunately, some
> controller may block in the destruction path for considerable duration
> while holding cgroup_mutex. As large part of destruction path is
> synchronized through cgroup_mutex, when combined with high rate of
> cgroup removals, this has potential to fill up system_wq's max_active
> of 256.
>
> Also, it turns out that memcg's css destruction path ends up queueing
> and waiting for work items on system_wq through work_on_cpu(). If
> such operation happens while system_wq is fully occupied by cgroup
> destruction work items, work_on_cpu() can't make forward progress
> because system_wq is full and other destruction work items on
> system_wq can't make forward progress because the work item waiting
> for work_on_cpu() is holding cgroup_mutex, leading to deadlock.
>
> This can be fixed by queueing destruction work items on a separate
> workqueue. This patch creates a dedicated workqueue -
> cgroup_destroy_wq - for this purpose. As these work items shouldn't
> have inter-dependencies and mostly serialized by cgroup_mutex anyway,
> giving high concurrency level doesn't buy anything and the workqueue's
> @max_active is set to 1 so that destruction work items are executed
> one by one on each CPU.
>
> Hugh Dickins: Because cgroup_init() is run before init_workqueues(),
> cgroup_destroy_wq can't be allocated from cgroup_init(). Do it from a
> separate core_initcall(). In the future, we probably want to reorder
> so that workqueue init happens before cgroup_init().
>
> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
> Reported-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
> Reported-by: Shawn Bohrer <shawn.bohrer@gmail.com>
> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20131111220626.GA7509@sbohrermbp13-local.rgmadvisors.com
> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/g/alpine.LNX.2.00.1310301606080.2333@eggly.anvils
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # v3.9+
Acked-by: Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-11-25 1:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-11-11 22:06 3.10.16 cgroup_mutex deadlock Shawn Bohrer
2013-11-12 10:17 ` Li Zefan
2013-11-12 14:31 ` Michal Hocko
2013-11-12 15:55 ` Shawn Bohrer
2013-11-12 16:55 ` Michal Hocko
2013-11-14 22:56 ` Shawn Bohrer
2013-11-15 6:24 ` Tejun Heo
2013-11-15 7:54 ` Tejun Heo
2013-11-18 2:17 ` Hugh Dickins
2013-11-18 20:10 ` Shawn Bohrer
2013-11-19 2:55 ` Li Zefan
2013-11-20 22:47 ` Shawn Bohrer
2013-11-22 20:59 ` William Dauchy
2013-11-22 22:18 ` Tejun Heo
2013-11-22 22:54 ` William Dauchy
2013-11-25 1:20 ` Li Zefan
2013-12-02 10:31 ` William Dauchy
2013-12-03 1:37 ` Li Zefan
2013-11-22 22:17 ` [PATCH cgroup/for-3.13-fixes] cgroup: use a dedicated workqueue for cgroup destruction Tejun Heo
2013-11-24 18:23 ` Hugh Dickins
2013-11-25 1:16 ` Li Zefan [this message]
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:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=5292A4F7.3030105@huawei.com \
--to=lizefan@huawei.com \
--cc=burian@muenster.de \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.cz \
--cc=shawn.bohrer@gmail.com \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* 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
Powered by JetHome