linux/kernel/bpf/percpu_freelist.c

201 lines
4.7 KiB
C
Raw Normal View History

// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
/* Copyright (c) 2016 Facebook
*/
#include "percpu_freelist.h"
int pcpu_freelist_init(struct pcpu_freelist *s)
{
int cpu;
s->freelist = alloc_percpu(struct pcpu_freelist_head);
if (!s->freelist)
return -ENOMEM;
for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
struct pcpu_freelist_head *head = per_cpu_ptr(s->freelist, cpu);
raw_spin_lock_init(&head->lock);
head->first = NULL;
}
bpf: Use raw_spin_trylock() for pcpu_freelist_push/pop in NMI Recent improvements in LOCKDEP highlighted a potential A-A deadlock with pcpu_freelist in NMI: ./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs -t stacktrace_build_id_nmi [ 18.984807] ================================ [ 18.984807] WARNING: inconsistent lock state [ 18.984808] 5.9.0-rc6-01771-g1466de1330e1 #2967 Not tainted [ 18.984809] -------------------------------- [ 18.984809] inconsistent {INITIAL USE} -> {IN-NMI} usage. [ 18.984810] test_progs/1990 [HC2[2]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] takes: [ 18.984810] ffffe8ffffc219c0 (&head->lock){....}-{2:2}, at: __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984813] {INITIAL USE} state was registered at: [ 18.984814] lock_acquire+0x175/0x7c0 [ 18.984814] _raw_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40 [ 18.984815] __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984815] pcpu_freelist_pop+0x31/0x40 [ 18.984816] htab_map_alloc+0xbbf/0xf40 [ 18.984816] __do_sys_bpf+0x5aa/0x3ed0 [ 18.984817] do_syscall_64+0x2d/0x40 [ 18.984818] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9 [ 18.984818] irq event stamp: 12 [...] [ 18.984822] other info that might help us debug this: [ 18.984823] Possible unsafe locking scenario: [ 18.984823] [ 18.984824] CPU0 [ 18.984824] ---- [ 18.984824] lock(&head->lock); [ 18.984826] <Interrupt> [ 18.984826] lock(&head->lock); [ 18.984827] [ 18.984828] *** DEADLOCK *** [ 18.984828] [ 18.984829] 2 locks held by test_progs/1990: [...] [ 18.984838] <NMI> [ 18.984838] dump_stack+0x9a/0xd0 [ 18.984839] lock_acquire+0x5c9/0x7c0 [ 18.984839] ? lock_release+0x6f0/0x6f0 [ 18.984840] ? __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984840] _raw_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40 [ 18.984841] ? __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984841] __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984842] pcpu_freelist_pop+0x17/0x40 [ 18.984842] ? lock_release+0x6f0/0x6f0 [ 18.984843] __bpf_get_stackid+0x534/0xaf0 [ 18.984843] bpf_prog_1fd9e30e1438d3c5_oncpu+0x73/0x350 [ 18.984844] bpf_overflow_handler+0x12f/0x3f0 This is because pcpu_freelist_head.lock is accessed in both NMI and non-NMI context. Fix this issue by using raw_spin_trylock() in NMI. Since NMI interrupts non-NMI context, when NMI context tries to lock the raw_spinlock, non-NMI context of the same CPU may already have locked a lock and is blocked from unlocking the lock. For a system with N CPUs, there could be N NMIs at the same time, and they may block N non-NMI raw_spinlocks. This is tricky for pcpu_freelist_push(), where unlike _pop(), failing _push() means leaking memory. This issue is more likely to trigger in non-SMP system. Fix this issue with an extra list, pcpu_freelist.extralist. The extralist is primarily used to take _push() when raw_spin_trylock() failed on all the per CPU lists. It should be empty most of the time. The following table summarizes the behavior of pcpu_freelist in NMI and non-NMI: non-NMI pop(): use _lock(); check per CPU lists first; if all per CPU lists are empty, check extralist; if extralist is empty, return NULL. non-NMI push(): use _lock(); only push to per CPU lists. NMI pop(): use _trylock(); check per CPU lists first; if all per CPU lists are locked or empty, check extralist; if extralist is locked or empty, return NULL. NMI push(): use _trylock(); check per CPU lists first; if all per CPU lists are locked; try push to extralist; if extralist is also locked, keep trying on per CPU lists. Reported-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20201005165838.3735218-1-songliubraving@fb.com
2020-10-05 19:58:38 +03:00
raw_spin_lock_init(&s->extralist.lock);
s->extralist.first = NULL;
return 0;
}
void pcpu_freelist_destroy(struct pcpu_freelist *s)
{
free_percpu(s->freelist);
}
static inline void pcpu_freelist_push_node(struct pcpu_freelist_head *head,
struct pcpu_freelist_node *node)
{
node->next = head->first;
bpf: avoid grabbing spin_locks of all cpus when no free elems This patch use head->first in pcpu_freelist_head to check freelist having free or not. If having, grab spin_lock, or check next cpu's freelist. Before patch: hash_map performance ./map_perf_test 1 0:hash_map_perf pre-alloc 1043397 events per sec ... The average of the test results is around 1050000 events per sec. hash_map the worst: no free ./run_bench_bpf_hashmap_full_update.sh Setting up benchmark 'bpf-hashmap-ful-update'... Benchmark 'bpf-hashmap-ful-update' started. 1:hash_map_full_perf 15687 events per sec ... The average of the test results is around 16000 events per sec. ftrace trace: 0) | htab_map_update_elem() { 0) | __pcpu_freelist_pop() { 0) | _raw_spin_lock() 0) | _raw_spin_unlock() 0) | ... 0) + 25.188 us | } 0) + 28.439 us | } The test machine is 16C, trying to get spin_lock 17 times, in addition to 16c, there is an extralist. after patch: hash_map performance ./map_perf_test 1 0:hash_map_perf pre-alloc 1053298 events per sec ... The average of the test results is around 1050000 events per sec. hash_map worst: no free ./run_bench_bpf_hashmap_full_update.sh Setting up benchmark 'bpf-hashmap-ful-update'... Benchmark 'bpf-hashmap-ful-update' started. 1:hash_map_full_perf 555830 events per sec ... The average of the test results is around 550000 events per sec. ftrace trace: 0) | htab_map_update_elem() { 0) | alloc_htab_elem() { 0) 0.586 us | __pcpu_freelist_pop(); 0) 0.945 us | } 0) 8.669 us | } It can be seen that after adding this patch, the map performance is almost not degraded, and when free=0, first check head->first instead of directly acquiring spin_lock. Co-developed-by: Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@bytedance.com> Signed-off-by: Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@bytedance.com> Signed-off-by: Feng Zhou <zhoufeng.zf@bytedance.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220610023308.93798-2-zhoufeng.zf@bytedance.com Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
2022-06-10 05:33:07 +03:00
WRITE_ONCE(head->first, node);
}
bpf: fix lockdep false positive in percpu_freelist Lockdep warns about false positive: [ 12.492084] 00000000e6b28347 (&head->lock){+...}, at: pcpu_freelist_push+0x2a/0x40 [ 12.492696] but this lock was taken by another, HARDIRQ-safe lock in the past: [ 12.493275] (&rq->lock){-.-.} [ 12.493276] [ 12.493276] [ 12.493276] and interrupts could create inverse lock ordering between them. [ 12.493276] [ 12.494435] [ 12.494435] other info that might help us debug this: [ 12.494979] Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario: [ 12.494979] [ 12.495518] CPU0 CPU1 [ 12.495879] ---- ---- [ 12.496243] lock(&head->lock); [ 12.496502] local_irq_disable(); [ 12.496969] lock(&rq->lock); [ 12.497431] lock(&head->lock); [ 12.497890] <Interrupt> [ 12.498104] lock(&rq->lock); [ 12.498368] [ 12.498368] *** DEADLOCK *** [ 12.498368] [ 12.498837] 1 lock held by dd/276: [ 12.499110] #0: 00000000c58cb2ee (rcu_read_lock){....}, at: trace_call_bpf+0x5e/0x240 [ 12.499747] [ 12.499747] the shortest dependencies between 2nd lock and 1st lock: [ 12.500389] -> (&rq->lock){-.-.} { [ 12.500669] IN-HARDIRQ-W at: [ 12.500934] _raw_spin_lock+0x2f/0x40 [ 12.501373] scheduler_tick+0x4c/0xf0 [ 12.501812] update_process_times+0x40/0x50 [ 12.502294] tick_periodic+0x27/0xb0 [ 12.502723] tick_handle_periodic+0x1f/0x60 [ 12.503203] timer_interrupt+0x11/0x20 [ 12.503651] __handle_irq_event_percpu+0x43/0x2c0 [ 12.504167] handle_irq_event_percpu+0x20/0x50 [ 12.504674] handle_irq_event+0x37/0x60 [ 12.505139] handle_level_irq+0xa7/0x120 [ 12.505601] handle_irq+0xa1/0x150 [ 12.506018] do_IRQ+0x77/0x140 [ 12.506411] ret_from_intr+0x0/0x1d [ 12.506834] _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x53/0x60 [ 12.507362] __setup_irq+0x481/0x730 [ 12.507789] setup_irq+0x49/0x80 [ 12.508195] hpet_time_init+0x21/0x32 [ 12.508644] x86_late_time_init+0xb/0x16 [ 12.509106] start_kernel+0x390/0x42a [ 12.509554] secondary_startup_64+0xa4/0xb0 [ 12.510034] IN-SOFTIRQ-W at: [ 12.510305] _raw_spin_lock+0x2f/0x40 [ 12.510772] try_to_wake_up+0x1c7/0x4e0 [ 12.511220] swake_up_locked+0x20/0x40 [ 12.511657] swake_up_one+0x1a/0x30 [ 12.512070] rcu_process_callbacks+0xc5/0x650 [ 12.512553] __do_softirq+0xe6/0x47b [ 12.512978] irq_exit+0xc3/0xd0 [ 12.513372] smp_apic_timer_interrupt+0xa9/0x250 [ 12.513876] apic_timer_interrupt+0xf/0x20 [ 12.514343] default_idle+0x1c/0x170 [ 12.514765] do_idle+0x199/0x240 [ 12.515159] cpu_startup_entry+0x19/0x20 [ 12.515614] start_kernel+0x422/0x42a [ 12.516045] secondary_startup_64+0xa4/0xb0 [ 12.516521] INITIAL USE at: [ 12.516774] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x38/0x50 [ 12.517258] rq_attach_root+0x16/0xd0 [ 12.517685] sched_init+0x2f2/0x3eb [ 12.518096] start_kernel+0x1fb/0x42a [ 12.518525] secondary_startup_64+0xa4/0xb0 [ 12.518986] } [ 12.519132] ... key at: [<ffffffff82b7bc28>] __key.71384+0x0/0x8 [ 12.519649] ... acquired at: [ 12.519892] pcpu_freelist_pop+0x7b/0xd0 [ 12.520221] bpf_get_stackid+0x1d2/0x4d0 [ 12.520563] ___bpf_prog_run+0x8b4/0x11a0 [ 12.520887] [ 12.521008] -> (&head->lock){+...} { [ 12.521292] HARDIRQ-ON-W at: [ 12.521539] _raw_spin_lock+0x2f/0x40 [ 12.521950] pcpu_freelist_push+0x2a/0x40 [ 12.522396] bpf_get_stackid+0x494/0x4d0 [ 12.522828] ___bpf_prog_run+0x8b4/0x11a0 [ 12.523296] INITIAL USE at: [ 12.523537] _raw_spin_lock+0x2f/0x40 [ 12.523944] pcpu_freelist_populate+0xc0/0x120 [ 12.524417] htab_map_alloc+0x405/0x500 [ 12.524835] __do_sys_bpf+0x1a3/0x1a90 [ 12.525253] do_syscall_64+0x4a/0x180 [ 12.525659] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe [ 12.526167] } [ 12.526311] ... key at: [<ffffffff838f7668>] __key.13130+0x0/0x8 [ 12.526812] ... acquired at: [ 12.527047] __lock_acquire+0x521/0x1350 [ 12.527371] lock_acquire+0x98/0x190 [ 12.527680] _raw_spin_lock+0x2f/0x40 [ 12.527994] pcpu_freelist_push+0x2a/0x40 [ 12.528325] bpf_get_stackid+0x494/0x4d0 [ 12.528645] ___bpf_prog_run+0x8b4/0x11a0 [ 12.528970] [ 12.529092] [ 12.529092] stack backtrace: [ 12.529444] CPU: 0 PID: 276 Comm: dd Not tainted 5.0.0-rc3-00018-g2fa53f892422 #475 [ 12.530043] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.11.0-2.el7 04/01/2014 [ 12.530750] Call Trace: [ 12.530948] dump_stack+0x5f/0x8b [ 12.531248] check_usage_backwards+0x10c/0x120 [ 12.531598] ? ___bpf_prog_run+0x8b4/0x11a0 [ 12.531935] ? mark_lock+0x382/0x560 [ 12.532229] mark_lock+0x382/0x560 [ 12.532496] ? print_shortest_lock_dependencies+0x180/0x180 [ 12.532928] __lock_acquire+0x521/0x1350 [ 12.533271] ? find_get_entry+0x17f/0x2e0 [ 12.533586] ? find_get_entry+0x19c/0x2e0 [ 12.533902] ? lock_acquire+0x98/0x190 [ 12.534196] lock_acquire+0x98/0x190 [ 12.534482] ? pcpu_freelist_push+0x2a/0x40 [ 12.534810] _raw_spin_lock+0x2f/0x40 [ 12.535099] ? pcpu_freelist_push+0x2a/0x40 [ 12.535432] pcpu_freelist_push+0x2a/0x40 [ 12.535750] bpf_get_stackid+0x494/0x4d0 [ 12.536062] ___bpf_prog_run+0x8b4/0x11a0 It has been explained that is a false positive here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/7/25/756 Recap: - stackmap uses pcpu_freelist - The lock in pcpu_freelist is a percpu lock - stackmap is only used by tracing bpf_prog - A tracing bpf_prog cannot be run if another bpf_prog has already been running (ensured by the percpu bpf_prog_active counter). Eric pointed out that this lockdep splats stops other legit lockdep splats in selftests/bpf/test_progs.c. Fix this by calling local_irq_save/restore for stackmap. Another false positive had also been worked around by calling local_irq_save in commit 89ad2fa3f043 ("bpf: fix lockdep splat"). That commit added unnecessary irq_save/restore to fast path of bpf hash map. irqs are already disabled at that point, since htab is holding per bucket spin_lock with irqsave. Let's reduce overhead for htab by introducing __pcpu_freelist_push/pop function w/o irqsave and convert pcpu_freelist_push/pop to irqsave to be used elsewhere (right now only in stackmap). It stops lockdep false positive in stackmap with a bit of acceptable overhead. Fixes: 557c0c6e7df8 ("bpf: convert stackmap to pre-allocation") Reported-by: Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@linaro.org> Reported-by: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com> Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
2019-01-31 05:12:43 +03:00
static inline void ___pcpu_freelist_push(struct pcpu_freelist_head *head,
struct pcpu_freelist_node *node)
{
raw_spin_lock(&head->lock);
pcpu_freelist_push_node(head, node);
raw_spin_unlock(&head->lock);
}
bpf: Use raw_spin_trylock() for pcpu_freelist_push/pop in NMI Recent improvements in LOCKDEP highlighted a potential A-A deadlock with pcpu_freelist in NMI: ./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs -t stacktrace_build_id_nmi [ 18.984807] ================================ [ 18.984807] WARNING: inconsistent lock state [ 18.984808] 5.9.0-rc6-01771-g1466de1330e1 #2967 Not tainted [ 18.984809] -------------------------------- [ 18.984809] inconsistent {INITIAL USE} -> {IN-NMI} usage. [ 18.984810] test_progs/1990 [HC2[2]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] takes: [ 18.984810] ffffe8ffffc219c0 (&head->lock){....}-{2:2}, at: __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984813] {INITIAL USE} state was registered at: [ 18.984814] lock_acquire+0x175/0x7c0 [ 18.984814] _raw_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40 [ 18.984815] __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984815] pcpu_freelist_pop+0x31/0x40 [ 18.984816] htab_map_alloc+0xbbf/0xf40 [ 18.984816] __do_sys_bpf+0x5aa/0x3ed0 [ 18.984817] do_syscall_64+0x2d/0x40 [ 18.984818] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9 [ 18.984818] irq event stamp: 12 [...] [ 18.984822] other info that might help us debug this: [ 18.984823] Possible unsafe locking scenario: [ 18.984823] [ 18.984824] CPU0 [ 18.984824] ---- [ 18.984824] lock(&head->lock); [ 18.984826] <Interrupt> [ 18.984826] lock(&head->lock); [ 18.984827] [ 18.984828] *** DEADLOCK *** [ 18.984828] [ 18.984829] 2 locks held by test_progs/1990: [...] [ 18.984838] <NMI> [ 18.984838] dump_stack+0x9a/0xd0 [ 18.984839] lock_acquire+0x5c9/0x7c0 [ 18.984839] ? lock_release+0x6f0/0x6f0 [ 18.984840] ? __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984840] _raw_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40 [ 18.984841] ? __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984841] __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984842] pcpu_freelist_pop+0x17/0x40 [ 18.984842] ? lock_release+0x6f0/0x6f0 [ 18.984843] __bpf_get_stackid+0x534/0xaf0 [ 18.984843] bpf_prog_1fd9e30e1438d3c5_oncpu+0x73/0x350 [ 18.984844] bpf_overflow_handler+0x12f/0x3f0 This is because pcpu_freelist_head.lock is accessed in both NMI and non-NMI context. Fix this issue by using raw_spin_trylock() in NMI. Since NMI interrupts non-NMI context, when NMI context tries to lock the raw_spinlock, non-NMI context of the same CPU may already have locked a lock and is blocked from unlocking the lock. For a system with N CPUs, there could be N NMIs at the same time, and they may block N non-NMI raw_spinlocks. This is tricky for pcpu_freelist_push(), where unlike _pop(), failing _push() means leaking memory. This issue is more likely to trigger in non-SMP system. Fix this issue with an extra list, pcpu_freelist.extralist. The extralist is primarily used to take _push() when raw_spin_trylock() failed on all the per CPU lists. It should be empty most of the time. The following table summarizes the behavior of pcpu_freelist in NMI and non-NMI: non-NMI pop(): use _lock(); check per CPU lists first; if all per CPU lists are empty, check extralist; if extralist is empty, return NULL. non-NMI push(): use _lock(); only push to per CPU lists. NMI pop(): use _trylock(); check per CPU lists first; if all per CPU lists are locked or empty, check extralist; if extralist is locked or empty, return NULL. NMI push(): use _trylock(); check per CPU lists first; if all per CPU lists are locked; try push to extralist; if extralist is also locked, keep trying on per CPU lists. Reported-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20201005165838.3735218-1-songliubraving@fb.com
2020-10-05 19:58:38 +03:00
static inline bool pcpu_freelist_try_push_extra(struct pcpu_freelist *s,
struct pcpu_freelist_node *node)
{
if (!raw_spin_trylock(&s->extralist.lock))
return false;
pcpu_freelist_push_node(&s->extralist, node);
raw_spin_unlock(&s->extralist.lock);
return true;
}
static inline void ___pcpu_freelist_push_nmi(struct pcpu_freelist *s,
struct pcpu_freelist_node *node)
{
int cpu, orig_cpu;
orig_cpu = raw_smp_processor_id();
bpf: Use raw_spin_trylock() for pcpu_freelist_push/pop in NMI Recent improvements in LOCKDEP highlighted a potential A-A deadlock with pcpu_freelist in NMI: ./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs -t stacktrace_build_id_nmi [ 18.984807] ================================ [ 18.984807] WARNING: inconsistent lock state [ 18.984808] 5.9.0-rc6-01771-g1466de1330e1 #2967 Not tainted [ 18.984809] -------------------------------- [ 18.984809] inconsistent {INITIAL USE} -> {IN-NMI} usage. [ 18.984810] test_progs/1990 [HC2[2]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] takes: [ 18.984810] ffffe8ffffc219c0 (&head->lock){....}-{2:2}, at: __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984813] {INITIAL USE} state was registered at: [ 18.984814] lock_acquire+0x175/0x7c0 [ 18.984814] _raw_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40 [ 18.984815] __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984815] pcpu_freelist_pop+0x31/0x40 [ 18.984816] htab_map_alloc+0xbbf/0xf40 [ 18.984816] __do_sys_bpf+0x5aa/0x3ed0 [ 18.984817] do_syscall_64+0x2d/0x40 [ 18.984818] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9 [ 18.984818] irq event stamp: 12 [...] [ 18.984822] other info that might help us debug this: [ 18.984823] Possible unsafe locking scenario: [ 18.984823] [ 18.984824] CPU0 [ 18.984824] ---- [ 18.984824] lock(&head->lock); [ 18.984826] <Interrupt> [ 18.984826] lock(&head->lock); [ 18.984827] [ 18.984828] *** DEADLOCK *** [ 18.984828] [ 18.984829] 2 locks held by test_progs/1990: [...] [ 18.984838] <NMI> [ 18.984838] dump_stack+0x9a/0xd0 [ 18.984839] lock_acquire+0x5c9/0x7c0 [ 18.984839] ? lock_release+0x6f0/0x6f0 [ 18.984840] ? __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984840] _raw_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40 [ 18.984841] ? __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984841] __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984842] pcpu_freelist_pop+0x17/0x40 [ 18.984842] ? lock_release+0x6f0/0x6f0 [ 18.984843] __bpf_get_stackid+0x534/0xaf0 [ 18.984843] bpf_prog_1fd9e30e1438d3c5_oncpu+0x73/0x350 [ 18.984844] bpf_overflow_handler+0x12f/0x3f0 This is because pcpu_freelist_head.lock is accessed in both NMI and non-NMI context. Fix this issue by using raw_spin_trylock() in NMI. Since NMI interrupts non-NMI context, when NMI context tries to lock the raw_spinlock, non-NMI context of the same CPU may already have locked a lock and is blocked from unlocking the lock. For a system with N CPUs, there could be N NMIs at the same time, and they may block N non-NMI raw_spinlocks. This is tricky for pcpu_freelist_push(), where unlike _pop(), failing _push() means leaking memory. This issue is more likely to trigger in non-SMP system. Fix this issue with an extra list, pcpu_freelist.extralist. The extralist is primarily used to take _push() when raw_spin_trylock() failed on all the per CPU lists. It should be empty most of the time. The following table summarizes the behavior of pcpu_freelist in NMI and non-NMI: non-NMI pop(): use _lock(); check per CPU lists first; if all per CPU lists are empty, check extralist; if extralist is empty, return NULL. non-NMI push(): use _lock(); only push to per CPU lists. NMI pop(): use _trylock(); check per CPU lists first; if all per CPU lists are locked or empty, check extralist; if extralist is locked or empty, return NULL. NMI push(): use _trylock(); check per CPU lists first; if all per CPU lists are locked; try push to extralist; if extralist is also locked, keep trying on per CPU lists. Reported-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20201005165838.3735218-1-songliubraving@fb.com
2020-10-05 19:58:38 +03:00
while (1) {
for_each_cpu_wrap(cpu, cpu_possible_mask, orig_cpu) {
struct pcpu_freelist_head *head;
bpf: Use raw_spin_trylock() for pcpu_freelist_push/pop in NMI Recent improvements in LOCKDEP highlighted a potential A-A deadlock with pcpu_freelist in NMI: ./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs -t stacktrace_build_id_nmi [ 18.984807] ================================ [ 18.984807] WARNING: inconsistent lock state [ 18.984808] 5.9.0-rc6-01771-g1466de1330e1 #2967 Not tainted [ 18.984809] -------------------------------- [ 18.984809] inconsistent {INITIAL USE} -> {IN-NMI} usage. [ 18.984810] test_progs/1990 [HC2[2]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] takes: [ 18.984810] ffffe8ffffc219c0 (&head->lock){....}-{2:2}, at: __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984813] {INITIAL USE} state was registered at: [ 18.984814] lock_acquire+0x175/0x7c0 [ 18.984814] _raw_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40 [ 18.984815] __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984815] pcpu_freelist_pop+0x31/0x40 [ 18.984816] htab_map_alloc+0xbbf/0xf40 [ 18.984816] __do_sys_bpf+0x5aa/0x3ed0 [ 18.984817] do_syscall_64+0x2d/0x40 [ 18.984818] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9 [ 18.984818] irq event stamp: 12 [...] [ 18.984822] other info that might help us debug this: [ 18.984823] Possible unsafe locking scenario: [ 18.984823] [ 18.984824] CPU0 [ 18.984824] ---- [ 18.984824] lock(&head->lock); [ 18.984826] <Interrupt> [ 18.984826] lock(&head->lock); [ 18.984827] [ 18.984828] *** DEADLOCK *** [ 18.984828] [ 18.984829] 2 locks held by test_progs/1990: [...] [ 18.984838] <NMI> [ 18.984838] dump_stack+0x9a/0xd0 [ 18.984839] lock_acquire+0x5c9/0x7c0 [ 18.984839] ? lock_release+0x6f0/0x6f0 [ 18.984840] ? __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984840] _raw_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40 [ 18.984841] ? __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984841] __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984842] pcpu_freelist_pop+0x17/0x40 [ 18.984842] ? lock_release+0x6f0/0x6f0 [ 18.984843] __bpf_get_stackid+0x534/0xaf0 [ 18.984843] bpf_prog_1fd9e30e1438d3c5_oncpu+0x73/0x350 [ 18.984844] bpf_overflow_handler+0x12f/0x3f0 This is because pcpu_freelist_head.lock is accessed in both NMI and non-NMI context. Fix this issue by using raw_spin_trylock() in NMI. Since NMI interrupts non-NMI context, when NMI context tries to lock the raw_spinlock, non-NMI context of the same CPU may already have locked a lock and is blocked from unlocking the lock. For a system with N CPUs, there could be N NMIs at the same time, and they may block N non-NMI raw_spinlocks. This is tricky for pcpu_freelist_push(), where unlike _pop(), failing _push() means leaking memory. This issue is more likely to trigger in non-SMP system. Fix this issue with an extra list, pcpu_freelist.extralist. The extralist is primarily used to take _push() when raw_spin_trylock() failed on all the per CPU lists. It should be empty most of the time. The following table summarizes the behavior of pcpu_freelist in NMI and non-NMI: non-NMI pop(): use _lock(); check per CPU lists first; if all per CPU lists are empty, check extralist; if extralist is empty, return NULL. non-NMI push(): use _lock(); only push to per CPU lists. NMI pop(): use _trylock(); check per CPU lists first; if all per CPU lists are locked or empty, check extralist; if extralist is locked or empty, return NULL. NMI push(): use _trylock(); check per CPU lists first; if all per CPU lists are locked; try push to extralist; if extralist is also locked, keep trying on per CPU lists. Reported-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20201005165838.3735218-1-songliubraving@fb.com
2020-10-05 19:58:38 +03:00
head = per_cpu_ptr(s->freelist, cpu);
if (raw_spin_trylock(&head->lock)) {
pcpu_freelist_push_node(head, node);
raw_spin_unlock(&head->lock);
return;
}
bpf: Use raw_spin_trylock() for pcpu_freelist_push/pop in NMI Recent improvements in LOCKDEP highlighted a potential A-A deadlock with pcpu_freelist in NMI: ./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs -t stacktrace_build_id_nmi [ 18.984807] ================================ [ 18.984807] WARNING: inconsistent lock state [ 18.984808] 5.9.0-rc6-01771-g1466de1330e1 #2967 Not tainted [ 18.984809] -------------------------------- [ 18.984809] inconsistent {INITIAL USE} -> {IN-NMI} usage. [ 18.984810] test_progs/1990 [HC2[2]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] takes: [ 18.984810] ffffe8ffffc219c0 (&head->lock){....}-{2:2}, at: __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984813] {INITIAL USE} state was registered at: [ 18.984814] lock_acquire+0x175/0x7c0 [ 18.984814] _raw_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40 [ 18.984815] __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984815] pcpu_freelist_pop+0x31/0x40 [ 18.984816] htab_map_alloc+0xbbf/0xf40 [ 18.984816] __do_sys_bpf+0x5aa/0x3ed0 [ 18.984817] do_syscall_64+0x2d/0x40 [ 18.984818] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9 [ 18.984818] irq event stamp: 12 [...] [ 18.984822] other info that might help us debug this: [ 18.984823] Possible unsafe locking scenario: [ 18.984823] [ 18.984824] CPU0 [ 18.984824] ---- [ 18.984824] lock(&head->lock); [ 18.984826] <Interrupt> [ 18.984826] lock(&head->lock); [ 18.984827] [ 18.984828] *** DEADLOCK *** [ 18.984828] [ 18.984829] 2 locks held by test_progs/1990: [...] [ 18.984838] <NMI> [ 18.984838] dump_stack+0x9a/0xd0 [ 18.984839] lock_acquire+0x5c9/0x7c0 [ 18.984839] ? lock_release+0x6f0/0x6f0 [ 18.984840] ? __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984840] _raw_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40 [ 18.984841] ? __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984841] __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984842] pcpu_freelist_pop+0x17/0x40 [ 18.984842] ? lock_release+0x6f0/0x6f0 [ 18.984843] __bpf_get_stackid+0x534/0xaf0 [ 18.984843] bpf_prog_1fd9e30e1438d3c5_oncpu+0x73/0x350 [ 18.984844] bpf_overflow_handler+0x12f/0x3f0 This is because pcpu_freelist_head.lock is accessed in both NMI and non-NMI context. Fix this issue by using raw_spin_trylock() in NMI. Since NMI interrupts non-NMI context, when NMI context tries to lock the raw_spinlock, non-NMI context of the same CPU may already have locked a lock and is blocked from unlocking the lock. For a system with N CPUs, there could be N NMIs at the same time, and they may block N non-NMI raw_spinlocks. This is tricky for pcpu_freelist_push(), where unlike _pop(), failing _push() means leaking memory. This issue is more likely to trigger in non-SMP system. Fix this issue with an extra list, pcpu_freelist.extralist. The extralist is primarily used to take _push() when raw_spin_trylock() failed on all the per CPU lists. It should be empty most of the time. The following table summarizes the behavior of pcpu_freelist in NMI and non-NMI: non-NMI pop(): use _lock(); check per CPU lists first; if all per CPU lists are empty, check extralist; if extralist is empty, return NULL. non-NMI push(): use _lock(); only push to per CPU lists. NMI pop(): use _trylock(); check per CPU lists first; if all per CPU lists are locked or empty, check extralist; if extralist is locked or empty, return NULL. NMI push(): use _trylock(); check per CPU lists first; if all per CPU lists are locked; try push to extralist; if extralist is also locked, keep trying on per CPU lists. Reported-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20201005165838.3735218-1-songliubraving@fb.com
2020-10-05 19:58:38 +03:00
}
/* cannot lock any per cpu lock, try extralist */
if (pcpu_freelist_try_push_extra(s, node))
bpf: Use raw_spin_trylock() for pcpu_freelist_push/pop in NMI Recent improvements in LOCKDEP highlighted a potential A-A deadlock with pcpu_freelist in NMI: ./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs -t stacktrace_build_id_nmi [ 18.984807] ================================ [ 18.984807] WARNING: inconsistent lock state [ 18.984808] 5.9.0-rc6-01771-g1466de1330e1 #2967 Not tainted [ 18.984809] -------------------------------- [ 18.984809] inconsistent {INITIAL USE} -> {IN-NMI} usage. [ 18.984810] test_progs/1990 [HC2[2]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] takes: [ 18.984810] ffffe8ffffc219c0 (&head->lock){....}-{2:2}, at: __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984813] {INITIAL USE} state was registered at: [ 18.984814] lock_acquire+0x175/0x7c0 [ 18.984814] _raw_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40 [ 18.984815] __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984815] pcpu_freelist_pop+0x31/0x40 [ 18.984816] htab_map_alloc+0xbbf/0xf40 [ 18.984816] __do_sys_bpf+0x5aa/0x3ed0 [ 18.984817] do_syscall_64+0x2d/0x40 [ 18.984818] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9 [ 18.984818] irq event stamp: 12 [...] [ 18.984822] other info that might help us debug this: [ 18.984823] Possible unsafe locking scenario: [ 18.984823] [ 18.984824] CPU0 [ 18.984824] ---- [ 18.984824] lock(&head->lock); [ 18.984826] <Interrupt> [ 18.984826] lock(&head->lock); [ 18.984827] [ 18.984828] *** DEADLOCK *** [ 18.984828] [ 18.984829] 2 locks held by test_progs/1990: [...] [ 18.984838] <NMI> [ 18.984838] dump_stack+0x9a/0xd0 [ 18.984839] lock_acquire+0x5c9/0x7c0 [ 18.984839] ? lock_release+0x6f0/0x6f0 [ 18.984840] ? __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984840] _raw_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40 [ 18.984841] ? __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984841] __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984842] pcpu_freelist_pop+0x17/0x40 [ 18.984842] ? lock_release+0x6f0/0x6f0 [ 18.984843] __bpf_get_stackid+0x534/0xaf0 [ 18.984843] bpf_prog_1fd9e30e1438d3c5_oncpu+0x73/0x350 [ 18.984844] bpf_overflow_handler+0x12f/0x3f0 This is because pcpu_freelist_head.lock is accessed in both NMI and non-NMI context. Fix this issue by using raw_spin_trylock() in NMI. Since NMI interrupts non-NMI context, when NMI context tries to lock the raw_spinlock, non-NMI context of the same CPU may already have locked a lock and is blocked from unlocking the lock. For a system with N CPUs, there could be N NMIs at the same time, and they may block N non-NMI raw_spinlocks. This is tricky for pcpu_freelist_push(), where unlike _pop(), failing _push() means leaking memory. This issue is more likely to trigger in non-SMP system. Fix this issue with an extra list, pcpu_freelist.extralist. The extralist is primarily used to take _push() when raw_spin_trylock() failed on all the per CPU lists. It should be empty most of the time. The following table summarizes the behavior of pcpu_freelist in NMI and non-NMI: non-NMI pop(): use _lock(); check per CPU lists first; if all per CPU lists are empty, check extralist; if extralist is empty, return NULL. non-NMI push(): use _lock(); only push to per CPU lists. NMI pop(): use _trylock(); check per CPU lists first; if all per CPU lists are locked or empty, check extralist; if extralist is locked or empty, return NULL. NMI push(): use _trylock(); check per CPU lists first; if all per CPU lists are locked; try push to extralist; if extralist is also locked, keep trying on per CPU lists. Reported-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20201005165838.3735218-1-songliubraving@fb.com
2020-10-05 19:58:38 +03:00
return;
}
}
bpf: fix lockdep false positive in percpu_freelist Lockdep warns about false positive: [ 12.492084] 00000000e6b28347 (&head->lock){+...}, at: pcpu_freelist_push+0x2a/0x40 [ 12.492696] but this lock was taken by another, HARDIRQ-safe lock in the past: [ 12.493275] (&rq->lock){-.-.} [ 12.493276] [ 12.493276] [ 12.493276] and interrupts could create inverse lock ordering between them. [ 12.493276] [ 12.494435] [ 12.494435] other info that might help us debug this: [ 12.494979] Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario: [ 12.494979] [ 12.495518] CPU0 CPU1 [ 12.495879] ---- ---- [ 12.496243] lock(&head->lock); [ 12.496502] local_irq_disable(); [ 12.496969] lock(&rq->lock); [ 12.497431] lock(&head->lock); [ 12.497890] <Interrupt> [ 12.498104] lock(&rq->lock); [ 12.498368] [ 12.498368] *** DEADLOCK *** [ 12.498368] [ 12.498837] 1 lock held by dd/276: [ 12.499110] #0: 00000000c58cb2ee (rcu_read_lock){....}, at: trace_call_bpf+0x5e/0x240 [ 12.499747] [ 12.499747] the shortest dependencies between 2nd lock and 1st lock: [ 12.500389] -> (&rq->lock){-.-.} { [ 12.500669] IN-HARDIRQ-W at: [ 12.500934] _raw_spin_lock+0x2f/0x40 [ 12.501373] scheduler_tick+0x4c/0xf0 [ 12.501812] update_process_times+0x40/0x50 [ 12.502294] tick_periodic+0x27/0xb0 [ 12.502723] tick_handle_periodic+0x1f/0x60 [ 12.503203] timer_interrupt+0x11/0x20 [ 12.503651] __handle_irq_event_percpu+0x43/0x2c0 [ 12.504167] handle_irq_event_percpu+0x20/0x50 [ 12.504674] handle_irq_event+0x37/0x60 [ 12.505139] handle_level_irq+0xa7/0x120 [ 12.505601] handle_irq+0xa1/0x150 [ 12.506018] do_IRQ+0x77/0x140 [ 12.506411] ret_from_intr+0x0/0x1d [ 12.506834] _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x53/0x60 [ 12.507362] __setup_irq+0x481/0x730 [ 12.507789] setup_irq+0x49/0x80 [ 12.508195] hpet_time_init+0x21/0x32 [ 12.508644] x86_late_time_init+0xb/0x16 [ 12.509106] start_kernel+0x390/0x42a [ 12.509554] secondary_startup_64+0xa4/0xb0 [ 12.510034] IN-SOFTIRQ-W at: [ 12.510305] _raw_spin_lock+0x2f/0x40 [ 12.510772] try_to_wake_up+0x1c7/0x4e0 [ 12.511220] swake_up_locked+0x20/0x40 [ 12.511657] swake_up_one+0x1a/0x30 [ 12.512070] rcu_process_callbacks+0xc5/0x650 [ 12.512553] __do_softirq+0xe6/0x47b [ 12.512978] irq_exit+0xc3/0xd0 [ 12.513372] smp_apic_timer_interrupt+0xa9/0x250 [ 12.513876] apic_timer_interrupt+0xf/0x20 [ 12.514343] default_idle+0x1c/0x170 [ 12.514765] do_idle+0x199/0x240 [ 12.515159] cpu_startup_entry+0x19/0x20 [ 12.515614] start_kernel+0x422/0x42a [ 12.516045] secondary_startup_64+0xa4/0xb0 [ 12.516521] INITIAL USE at: [ 12.516774] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x38/0x50 [ 12.517258] rq_attach_root+0x16/0xd0 [ 12.517685] sched_init+0x2f2/0x3eb [ 12.518096] start_kernel+0x1fb/0x42a [ 12.518525] secondary_startup_64+0xa4/0xb0 [ 12.518986] } [ 12.519132] ... key at: [<ffffffff82b7bc28>] __key.71384+0x0/0x8 [ 12.519649] ... acquired at: [ 12.519892] pcpu_freelist_pop+0x7b/0xd0 [ 12.520221] bpf_get_stackid+0x1d2/0x4d0 [ 12.520563] ___bpf_prog_run+0x8b4/0x11a0 [ 12.520887] [ 12.521008] -> (&head->lock){+...} { [ 12.521292] HARDIRQ-ON-W at: [ 12.521539] _raw_spin_lock+0x2f/0x40 [ 12.521950] pcpu_freelist_push+0x2a/0x40 [ 12.522396] bpf_get_stackid+0x494/0x4d0 [ 12.522828] ___bpf_prog_run+0x8b4/0x11a0 [ 12.523296] INITIAL USE at: [ 12.523537] _raw_spin_lock+0x2f/0x40 [ 12.523944] pcpu_freelist_populate+0xc0/0x120 [ 12.524417] htab_map_alloc+0x405/0x500 [ 12.524835] __do_sys_bpf+0x1a3/0x1a90 [ 12.525253] do_syscall_64+0x4a/0x180 [ 12.525659] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe [ 12.526167] } [ 12.526311] ... key at: [<ffffffff838f7668>] __key.13130+0x0/0x8 [ 12.526812] ... acquired at: [ 12.527047] __lock_acquire+0x521/0x1350 [ 12.527371] lock_acquire+0x98/0x190 [ 12.527680] _raw_spin_lock+0x2f/0x40 [ 12.527994] pcpu_freelist_push+0x2a/0x40 [ 12.528325] bpf_get_stackid+0x494/0x4d0 [ 12.528645] ___bpf_prog_run+0x8b4/0x11a0 [ 12.528970] [ 12.529092] [ 12.529092] stack backtrace: [ 12.529444] CPU: 0 PID: 276 Comm: dd Not tainted 5.0.0-rc3-00018-g2fa53f892422 #475 [ 12.530043] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.11.0-2.el7 04/01/2014 [ 12.530750] Call Trace: [ 12.530948] dump_stack+0x5f/0x8b [ 12.531248] check_usage_backwards+0x10c/0x120 [ 12.531598] ? ___bpf_prog_run+0x8b4/0x11a0 [ 12.531935] ? mark_lock+0x382/0x560 [ 12.532229] mark_lock+0x382/0x560 [ 12.532496] ? print_shortest_lock_dependencies+0x180/0x180 [ 12.532928] __lock_acquire+0x521/0x1350 [ 12.533271] ? find_get_entry+0x17f/0x2e0 [ 12.533586] ? find_get_entry+0x19c/0x2e0 [ 12.533902] ? lock_acquire+0x98/0x190 [ 12.534196] lock_acquire+0x98/0x190 [ 12.534482] ? pcpu_freelist_push+0x2a/0x40 [ 12.534810] _raw_spin_lock+0x2f/0x40 [ 12.535099] ? pcpu_freelist_push+0x2a/0x40 [ 12.535432] pcpu_freelist_push+0x2a/0x40 [ 12.535750] bpf_get_stackid+0x494/0x4d0 [ 12.536062] ___bpf_prog_run+0x8b4/0x11a0 It has been explained that is a false positive here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/7/25/756 Recap: - stackmap uses pcpu_freelist - The lock in pcpu_freelist is a percpu lock - stackmap is only used by tracing bpf_prog - A tracing bpf_prog cannot be run if another bpf_prog has already been running (ensured by the percpu bpf_prog_active counter). Eric pointed out that this lockdep splats stops other legit lockdep splats in selftests/bpf/test_progs.c. Fix this by calling local_irq_save/restore for stackmap. Another false positive had also been worked around by calling local_irq_save in commit 89ad2fa3f043 ("bpf: fix lockdep splat"). That commit added unnecessary irq_save/restore to fast path of bpf hash map. irqs are already disabled at that point, since htab is holding per bucket spin_lock with irqsave. Let's reduce overhead for htab by introducing __pcpu_freelist_push/pop function w/o irqsave and convert pcpu_freelist_push/pop to irqsave to be used elsewhere (right now only in stackmap). It stops lockdep false positive in stackmap with a bit of acceptable overhead. Fixes: 557c0c6e7df8 ("bpf: convert stackmap to pre-allocation") Reported-by: Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@linaro.org> Reported-by: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com> Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
2019-01-31 05:12:43 +03:00
void __pcpu_freelist_push(struct pcpu_freelist *s,
struct pcpu_freelist_node *node)
{
bpf: Use raw_spin_trylock() for pcpu_freelist_push/pop in NMI Recent improvements in LOCKDEP highlighted a potential A-A deadlock with pcpu_freelist in NMI: ./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs -t stacktrace_build_id_nmi [ 18.984807] ================================ [ 18.984807] WARNING: inconsistent lock state [ 18.984808] 5.9.0-rc6-01771-g1466de1330e1 #2967 Not tainted [ 18.984809] -------------------------------- [ 18.984809] inconsistent {INITIAL USE} -> {IN-NMI} usage. [ 18.984810] test_progs/1990 [HC2[2]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] takes: [ 18.984810] ffffe8ffffc219c0 (&head->lock){....}-{2:2}, at: __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984813] {INITIAL USE} state was registered at: [ 18.984814] lock_acquire+0x175/0x7c0 [ 18.984814] _raw_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40 [ 18.984815] __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984815] pcpu_freelist_pop+0x31/0x40 [ 18.984816] htab_map_alloc+0xbbf/0xf40 [ 18.984816] __do_sys_bpf+0x5aa/0x3ed0 [ 18.984817] do_syscall_64+0x2d/0x40 [ 18.984818] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9 [ 18.984818] irq event stamp: 12 [...] [ 18.984822] other info that might help us debug this: [ 18.984823] Possible unsafe locking scenario: [ 18.984823] [ 18.984824] CPU0 [ 18.984824] ---- [ 18.984824] lock(&head->lock); [ 18.984826] <Interrupt> [ 18.984826] lock(&head->lock); [ 18.984827] [ 18.984828] *** DEADLOCK *** [ 18.984828] [ 18.984829] 2 locks held by test_progs/1990: [...] [ 18.984838] <NMI> [ 18.984838] dump_stack+0x9a/0xd0 [ 18.984839] lock_acquire+0x5c9/0x7c0 [ 18.984839] ? lock_release+0x6f0/0x6f0 [ 18.984840] ? __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984840] _raw_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40 [ 18.984841] ? __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984841] __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984842] pcpu_freelist_pop+0x17/0x40 [ 18.984842] ? lock_release+0x6f0/0x6f0 [ 18.984843] __bpf_get_stackid+0x534/0xaf0 [ 18.984843] bpf_prog_1fd9e30e1438d3c5_oncpu+0x73/0x350 [ 18.984844] bpf_overflow_handler+0x12f/0x3f0 This is because pcpu_freelist_head.lock is accessed in both NMI and non-NMI context. Fix this issue by using raw_spin_trylock() in NMI. Since NMI interrupts non-NMI context, when NMI context tries to lock the raw_spinlock, non-NMI context of the same CPU may already have locked a lock and is blocked from unlocking the lock. For a system with N CPUs, there could be N NMIs at the same time, and they may block N non-NMI raw_spinlocks. This is tricky for pcpu_freelist_push(), where unlike _pop(), failing _push() means leaking memory. This issue is more likely to trigger in non-SMP system. Fix this issue with an extra list, pcpu_freelist.extralist. The extralist is primarily used to take _push() when raw_spin_trylock() failed on all the per CPU lists. It should be empty most of the time. The following table summarizes the behavior of pcpu_freelist in NMI and non-NMI: non-NMI pop(): use _lock(); check per CPU lists first; if all per CPU lists are empty, check extralist; if extralist is empty, return NULL. non-NMI push(): use _lock(); only push to per CPU lists. NMI pop(): use _trylock(); check per CPU lists first; if all per CPU lists are locked or empty, check extralist; if extralist is locked or empty, return NULL. NMI push(): use _trylock(); check per CPU lists first; if all per CPU lists are locked; try push to extralist; if extralist is also locked, keep trying on per CPU lists. Reported-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20201005165838.3735218-1-songliubraving@fb.com
2020-10-05 19:58:38 +03:00
if (in_nmi())
___pcpu_freelist_push_nmi(s, node);
else
___pcpu_freelist_push(this_cpu_ptr(s->freelist), node);
bpf: fix lockdep false positive in percpu_freelist Lockdep warns about false positive: [ 12.492084] 00000000e6b28347 (&head->lock){+...}, at: pcpu_freelist_push+0x2a/0x40 [ 12.492696] but this lock was taken by another, HARDIRQ-safe lock in the past: [ 12.493275] (&rq->lock){-.-.} [ 12.493276] [ 12.493276] [ 12.493276] and interrupts could create inverse lock ordering between them. [ 12.493276] [ 12.494435] [ 12.494435] other info that might help us debug this: [ 12.494979] Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario: [ 12.494979] [ 12.495518] CPU0 CPU1 [ 12.495879] ---- ---- [ 12.496243] lock(&head->lock); [ 12.496502] local_irq_disable(); [ 12.496969] lock(&rq->lock); [ 12.497431] lock(&head->lock); [ 12.497890] <Interrupt> [ 12.498104] lock(&rq->lock); [ 12.498368] [ 12.498368] *** DEADLOCK *** [ 12.498368] [ 12.498837] 1 lock held by dd/276: [ 12.499110] #0: 00000000c58cb2ee (rcu_read_lock){....}, at: trace_call_bpf+0x5e/0x240 [ 12.499747] [ 12.499747] the shortest dependencies between 2nd lock and 1st lock: [ 12.500389] -> (&rq->lock){-.-.} { [ 12.500669] IN-HARDIRQ-W at: [ 12.500934] _raw_spin_lock+0x2f/0x40 [ 12.501373] scheduler_tick+0x4c/0xf0 [ 12.501812] update_process_times+0x40/0x50 [ 12.502294] tick_periodic+0x27/0xb0 [ 12.502723] tick_handle_periodic+0x1f/0x60 [ 12.503203] timer_interrupt+0x11/0x20 [ 12.503651] __handle_irq_event_percpu+0x43/0x2c0 [ 12.504167] handle_irq_event_percpu+0x20/0x50 [ 12.504674] handle_irq_event+0x37/0x60 [ 12.505139] handle_level_irq+0xa7/0x120 [ 12.505601] handle_irq+0xa1/0x150 [ 12.506018] do_IRQ+0x77/0x140 [ 12.506411] ret_from_intr+0x0/0x1d [ 12.506834] _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x53/0x60 [ 12.507362] __setup_irq+0x481/0x730 [ 12.507789] setup_irq+0x49/0x80 [ 12.508195] hpet_time_init+0x21/0x32 [ 12.508644] x86_late_time_init+0xb/0x16 [ 12.509106] start_kernel+0x390/0x42a [ 12.509554] secondary_startup_64+0xa4/0xb0 [ 12.510034] IN-SOFTIRQ-W at: [ 12.510305] _raw_spin_lock+0x2f/0x40 [ 12.510772] try_to_wake_up+0x1c7/0x4e0 [ 12.511220] swake_up_locked+0x20/0x40 [ 12.511657] swake_up_one+0x1a/0x30 [ 12.512070] rcu_process_callbacks+0xc5/0x650 [ 12.512553] __do_softirq+0xe6/0x47b [ 12.512978] irq_exit+0xc3/0xd0 [ 12.513372] smp_apic_timer_interrupt+0xa9/0x250 [ 12.513876] apic_timer_interrupt+0xf/0x20 [ 12.514343] default_idle+0x1c/0x170 [ 12.514765] do_idle+0x199/0x240 [ 12.515159] cpu_startup_entry+0x19/0x20 [ 12.515614] start_kernel+0x422/0x42a [ 12.516045] secondary_startup_64+0xa4/0xb0 [ 12.516521] INITIAL USE at: [ 12.516774] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x38/0x50 [ 12.517258] rq_attach_root+0x16/0xd0 [ 12.517685] sched_init+0x2f2/0x3eb [ 12.518096] start_kernel+0x1fb/0x42a [ 12.518525] secondary_startup_64+0xa4/0xb0 [ 12.518986] } [ 12.519132] ... key at: [<ffffffff82b7bc28>] __key.71384+0x0/0x8 [ 12.519649] ... acquired at: [ 12.519892] pcpu_freelist_pop+0x7b/0xd0 [ 12.520221] bpf_get_stackid+0x1d2/0x4d0 [ 12.520563] ___bpf_prog_run+0x8b4/0x11a0 [ 12.520887] [ 12.521008] -> (&head->lock){+...} { [ 12.521292] HARDIRQ-ON-W at: [ 12.521539] _raw_spin_lock+0x2f/0x40 [ 12.521950] pcpu_freelist_push+0x2a/0x40 [ 12.522396] bpf_get_stackid+0x494/0x4d0 [ 12.522828] ___bpf_prog_run+0x8b4/0x11a0 [ 12.523296] INITIAL USE at: [ 12.523537] _raw_spin_lock+0x2f/0x40 [ 12.523944] pcpu_freelist_populate+0xc0/0x120 [ 12.524417] htab_map_alloc+0x405/0x500 [ 12.524835] __do_sys_bpf+0x1a3/0x1a90 [ 12.525253] do_syscall_64+0x4a/0x180 [ 12.525659] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe [ 12.526167] } [ 12.526311] ... key at: [<ffffffff838f7668>] __key.13130+0x0/0x8 [ 12.526812] ... acquired at: [ 12.527047] __lock_acquire+0x521/0x1350 [ 12.527371] lock_acquire+0x98/0x190 [ 12.527680] _raw_spin_lock+0x2f/0x40 [ 12.527994] pcpu_freelist_push+0x2a/0x40 [ 12.528325] bpf_get_stackid+0x494/0x4d0 [ 12.528645] ___bpf_prog_run+0x8b4/0x11a0 [ 12.528970] [ 12.529092] [ 12.529092] stack backtrace: [ 12.529444] CPU: 0 PID: 276 Comm: dd Not tainted 5.0.0-rc3-00018-g2fa53f892422 #475 [ 12.530043] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.11.0-2.el7 04/01/2014 [ 12.530750] Call Trace: [ 12.530948] dump_stack+0x5f/0x8b [ 12.531248] check_usage_backwards+0x10c/0x120 [ 12.531598] ? ___bpf_prog_run+0x8b4/0x11a0 [ 12.531935] ? mark_lock+0x382/0x560 [ 12.532229] mark_lock+0x382/0x560 [ 12.532496] ? print_shortest_lock_dependencies+0x180/0x180 [ 12.532928] __lock_acquire+0x521/0x1350 [ 12.533271] ? find_get_entry+0x17f/0x2e0 [ 12.533586] ? find_get_entry+0x19c/0x2e0 [ 12.533902] ? lock_acquire+0x98/0x190 [ 12.534196] lock_acquire+0x98/0x190 [ 12.534482] ? pcpu_freelist_push+0x2a/0x40 [ 12.534810] _raw_spin_lock+0x2f/0x40 [ 12.535099] ? pcpu_freelist_push+0x2a/0x40 [ 12.535432] pcpu_freelist_push+0x2a/0x40 [ 12.535750] bpf_get_stackid+0x494/0x4d0 [ 12.536062] ___bpf_prog_run+0x8b4/0x11a0 It has been explained that is a false positive here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/7/25/756 Recap: - stackmap uses pcpu_freelist - The lock in pcpu_freelist is a percpu lock - stackmap is only used by tracing bpf_prog - A tracing bpf_prog cannot be run if another bpf_prog has already been running (ensured by the percpu bpf_prog_active counter). Eric pointed out that this lockdep splats stops other legit lockdep splats in selftests/bpf/test_progs.c. Fix this by calling local_irq_save/restore for stackmap. Another false positive had also been worked around by calling local_irq_save in commit 89ad2fa3f043 ("bpf: fix lockdep splat"). That commit added unnecessary irq_save/restore to fast path of bpf hash map. irqs are already disabled at that point, since htab is holding per bucket spin_lock with irqsave. Let's reduce overhead for htab by introducing __pcpu_freelist_push/pop function w/o irqsave and convert pcpu_freelist_push/pop to irqsave to be used elsewhere (right now only in stackmap). It stops lockdep false positive in stackmap with a bit of acceptable overhead. Fixes: 557c0c6e7df8 ("bpf: convert stackmap to pre-allocation") Reported-by: Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@linaro.org> Reported-by: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com> Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
2019-01-31 05:12:43 +03:00
}
void pcpu_freelist_push(struct pcpu_freelist *s,
struct pcpu_freelist_node *node)
{
unsigned long flags;
local_irq_save(flags);
__pcpu_freelist_push(s, node);
local_irq_restore(flags);
}
void pcpu_freelist_populate(struct pcpu_freelist *s, void *buf, u32 elem_size,
u32 nr_elems)
{
struct pcpu_freelist_head *head;
unsigned int cpu, cpu_idx, i, j, n, m;
n = nr_elems / num_possible_cpus();
m = nr_elems % num_possible_cpus();
cpu_idx = 0;
for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
head = per_cpu_ptr(s->freelist, cpu);
j = n + (cpu_idx < m ? 1 : 0);
for (i = 0; i < j; i++) {
/* No locking required as this is not visible yet. */
pcpu_freelist_push_node(head, buf);
buf += elem_size;
}
cpu_idx++;
}
}
bpf: Use raw_spin_trylock() for pcpu_freelist_push/pop in NMI Recent improvements in LOCKDEP highlighted a potential A-A deadlock with pcpu_freelist in NMI: ./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs -t stacktrace_build_id_nmi [ 18.984807] ================================ [ 18.984807] WARNING: inconsistent lock state [ 18.984808] 5.9.0-rc6-01771-g1466de1330e1 #2967 Not tainted [ 18.984809] -------------------------------- [ 18.984809] inconsistent {INITIAL USE} -> {IN-NMI} usage. [ 18.984810] test_progs/1990 [HC2[2]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] takes: [ 18.984810] ffffe8ffffc219c0 (&head->lock){....}-{2:2}, at: __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984813] {INITIAL USE} state was registered at: [ 18.984814] lock_acquire+0x175/0x7c0 [ 18.984814] _raw_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40 [ 18.984815] __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984815] pcpu_freelist_pop+0x31/0x40 [ 18.984816] htab_map_alloc+0xbbf/0xf40 [ 18.984816] __do_sys_bpf+0x5aa/0x3ed0 [ 18.984817] do_syscall_64+0x2d/0x40 [ 18.984818] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9 [ 18.984818] irq event stamp: 12 [...] [ 18.984822] other info that might help us debug this: [ 18.984823] Possible unsafe locking scenario: [ 18.984823] [ 18.984824] CPU0 [ 18.984824] ---- [ 18.984824] lock(&head->lock); [ 18.984826] <Interrupt> [ 18.984826] lock(&head->lock); [ 18.984827] [ 18.984828] *** DEADLOCK *** [ 18.984828] [ 18.984829] 2 locks held by test_progs/1990: [...] [ 18.984838] <NMI> [ 18.984838] dump_stack+0x9a/0xd0 [ 18.984839] lock_acquire+0x5c9/0x7c0 [ 18.984839] ? lock_release+0x6f0/0x6f0 [ 18.984840] ? __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984840] _raw_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40 [ 18.984841] ? __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984841] __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984842] pcpu_freelist_pop+0x17/0x40 [ 18.984842] ? lock_release+0x6f0/0x6f0 [ 18.984843] __bpf_get_stackid+0x534/0xaf0 [ 18.984843] bpf_prog_1fd9e30e1438d3c5_oncpu+0x73/0x350 [ 18.984844] bpf_overflow_handler+0x12f/0x3f0 This is because pcpu_freelist_head.lock is accessed in both NMI and non-NMI context. Fix this issue by using raw_spin_trylock() in NMI. Since NMI interrupts non-NMI context, when NMI context tries to lock the raw_spinlock, non-NMI context of the same CPU may already have locked a lock and is blocked from unlocking the lock. For a system with N CPUs, there could be N NMIs at the same time, and they may block N non-NMI raw_spinlocks. This is tricky for pcpu_freelist_push(), where unlike _pop(), failing _push() means leaking memory. This issue is more likely to trigger in non-SMP system. Fix this issue with an extra list, pcpu_freelist.extralist. The extralist is primarily used to take _push() when raw_spin_trylock() failed on all the per CPU lists. It should be empty most of the time. The following table summarizes the behavior of pcpu_freelist in NMI and non-NMI: non-NMI pop(): use _lock(); check per CPU lists first; if all per CPU lists are empty, check extralist; if extralist is empty, return NULL. non-NMI push(): use _lock(); only push to per CPU lists. NMI pop(): use _trylock(); check per CPU lists first; if all per CPU lists are locked or empty, check extralist; if extralist is locked or empty, return NULL. NMI push(): use _trylock(); check per CPU lists first; if all per CPU lists are locked; try push to extralist; if extralist is also locked, keep trying on per CPU lists. Reported-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20201005165838.3735218-1-songliubraving@fb.com
2020-10-05 19:58:38 +03:00
static struct pcpu_freelist_node *___pcpu_freelist_pop(struct pcpu_freelist *s)
{
struct pcpu_freelist_head *head;
struct pcpu_freelist_node *node;
int cpu;
for_each_cpu_wrap(cpu, cpu_possible_mask, raw_smp_processor_id()) {
head = per_cpu_ptr(s->freelist, cpu);
bpf: avoid grabbing spin_locks of all cpus when no free elems This patch use head->first in pcpu_freelist_head to check freelist having free or not. If having, grab spin_lock, or check next cpu's freelist. Before patch: hash_map performance ./map_perf_test 1 0:hash_map_perf pre-alloc 1043397 events per sec ... The average of the test results is around 1050000 events per sec. hash_map the worst: no free ./run_bench_bpf_hashmap_full_update.sh Setting up benchmark 'bpf-hashmap-ful-update'... Benchmark 'bpf-hashmap-ful-update' started. 1:hash_map_full_perf 15687 events per sec ... The average of the test results is around 16000 events per sec. ftrace trace: 0) | htab_map_update_elem() { 0) | __pcpu_freelist_pop() { 0) | _raw_spin_lock() 0) | _raw_spin_unlock() 0) | ... 0) + 25.188 us | } 0) + 28.439 us | } The test machine is 16C, trying to get spin_lock 17 times, in addition to 16c, there is an extralist. after patch: hash_map performance ./map_perf_test 1 0:hash_map_perf pre-alloc 1053298 events per sec ... The average of the test results is around 1050000 events per sec. hash_map worst: no free ./run_bench_bpf_hashmap_full_update.sh Setting up benchmark 'bpf-hashmap-ful-update'... Benchmark 'bpf-hashmap-ful-update' started. 1:hash_map_full_perf 555830 events per sec ... The average of the test results is around 550000 events per sec. ftrace trace: 0) | htab_map_update_elem() { 0) | alloc_htab_elem() { 0) 0.586 us | __pcpu_freelist_pop(); 0) 0.945 us | } 0) 8.669 us | } It can be seen that after adding this patch, the map performance is almost not degraded, and when free=0, first check head->first instead of directly acquiring spin_lock. Co-developed-by: Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@bytedance.com> Signed-off-by: Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@bytedance.com> Signed-off-by: Feng Zhou <zhoufeng.zf@bytedance.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220610023308.93798-2-zhoufeng.zf@bytedance.com Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
2022-06-10 05:33:07 +03:00
if (!READ_ONCE(head->first))
continue;
raw_spin_lock(&head->lock);
node = head->first;
if (node) {
bpf: avoid grabbing spin_locks of all cpus when no free elems This patch use head->first in pcpu_freelist_head to check freelist having free or not. If having, grab spin_lock, or check next cpu's freelist. Before patch: hash_map performance ./map_perf_test 1 0:hash_map_perf pre-alloc 1043397 events per sec ... The average of the test results is around 1050000 events per sec. hash_map the worst: no free ./run_bench_bpf_hashmap_full_update.sh Setting up benchmark 'bpf-hashmap-ful-update'... Benchmark 'bpf-hashmap-ful-update' started. 1:hash_map_full_perf 15687 events per sec ... The average of the test results is around 16000 events per sec. ftrace trace: 0) | htab_map_update_elem() { 0) | __pcpu_freelist_pop() { 0) | _raw_spin_lock() 0) | _raw_spin_unlock() 0) | ... 0) + 25.188 us | } 0) + 28.439 us | } The test machine is 16C, trying to get spin_lock 17 times, in addition to 16c, there is an extralist. after patch: hash_map performance ./map_perf_test 1 0:hash_map_perf pre-alloc 1053298 events per sec ... The average of the test results is around 1050000 events per sec. hash_map worst: no free ./run_bench_bpf_hashmap_full_update.sh Setting up benchmark 'bpf-hashmap-ful-update'... Benchmark 'bpf-hashmap-ful-update' started. 1:hash_map_full_perf 555830 events per sec ... The average of the test results is around 550000 events per sec. ftrace trace: 0) | htab_map_update_elem() { 0) | alloc_htab_elem() { 0) 0.586 us | __pcpu_freelist_pop(); 0) 0.945 us | } 0) 8.669 us | } It can be seen that after adding this patch, the map performance is almost not degraded, and when free=0, first check head->first instead of directly acquiring spin_lock. Co-developed-by: Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@bytedance.com> Signed-off-by: Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@bytedance.com> Signed-off-by: Feng Zhou <zhoufeng.zf@bytedance.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220610023308.93798-2-zhoufeng.zf@bytedance.com Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
2022-06-10 05:33:07 +03:00
WRITE_ONCE(head->first, node->next);
bpf: fix lockdep false positive in percpu_freelist Lockdep warns about false positive: [ 12.492084] 00000000e6b28347 (&head->lock){+...}, at: pcpu_freelist_push+0x2a/0x40 [ 12.492696] but this lock was taken by another, HARDIRQ-safe lock in the past: [ 12.493275] (&rq->lock){-.-.} [ 12.493276] [ 12.493276] [ 12.493276] and interrupts could create inverse lock ordering between them. [ 12.493276] [ 12.494435] [ 12.494435] other info that might help us debug this: [ 12.494979] Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario: [ 12.494979] [ 12.495518] CPU0 CPU1 [ 12.495879] ---- ---- [ 12.496243] lock(&head->lock); [ 12.496502] local_irq_disable(); [ 12.496969] lock(&rq->lock); [ 12.497431] lock(&head->lock); [ 12.497890] <Interrupt> [ 12.498104] lock(&rq->lock); [ 12.498368] [ 12.498368] *** DEADLOCK *** [ 12.498368] [ 12.498837] 1 lock held by dd/276: [ 12.499110] #0: 00000000c58cb2ee (rcu_read_lock){....}, at: trace_call_bpf+0x5e/0x240 [ 12.499747] [ 12.499747] the shortest dependencies between 2nd lock and 1st lock: [ 12.500389] -> (&rq->lock){-.-.} { [ 12.500669] IN-HARDIRQ-W at: [ 12.500934] _raw_spin_lock+0x2f/0x40 [ 12.501373] scheduler_tick+0x4c/0xf0 [ 12.501812] update_process_times+0x40/0x50 [ 12.502294] tick_periodic+0x27/0xb0 [ 12.502723] tick_handle_periodic+0x1f/0x60 [ 12.503203] timer_interrupt+0x11/0x20 [ 12.503651] __handle_irq_event_percpu+0x43/0x2c0 [ 12.504167] handle_irq_event_percpu+0x20/0x50 [ 12.504674] handle_irq_event+0x37/0x60 [ 12.505139] handle_level_irq+0xa7/0x120 [ 12.505601] handle_irq+0xa1/0x150 [ 12.506018] do_IRQ+0x77/0x140 [ 12.506411] ret_from_intr+0x0/0x1d [ 12.506834] _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x53/0x60 [ 12.507362] __setup_irq+0x481/0x730 [ 12.507789] setup_irq+0x49/0x80 [ 12.508195] hpet_time_init+0x21/0x32 [ 12.508644] x86_late_time_init+0xb/0x16 [ 12.509106] start_kernel+0x390/0x42a [ 12.509554] secondary_startup_64+0xa4/0xb0 [ 12.510034] IN-SOFTIRQ-W at: [ 12.510305] _raw_spin_lock+0x2f/0x40 [ 12.510772] try_to_wake_up+0x1c7/0x4e0 [ 12.511220] swake_up_locked+0x20/0x40 [ 12.511657] swake_up_one+0x1a/0x30 [ 12.512070] rcu_process_callbacks+0xc5/0x650 [ 12.512553] __do_softirq+0xe6/0x47b [ 12.512978] irq_exit+0xc3/0xd0 [ 12.513372] smp_apic_timer_interrupt+0xa9/0x250 [ 12.513876] apic_timer_interrupt+0xf/0x20 [ 12.514343] default_idle+0x1c/0x170 [ 12.514765] do_idle+0x199/0x240 [ 12.515159] cpu_startup_entry+0x19/0x20 [ 12.515614] start_kernel+0x422/0x42a [ 12.516045] secondary_startup_64+0xa4/0xb0 [ 12.516521] INITIAL USE at: [ 12.516774] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x38/0x50 [ 12.517258] rq_attach_root+0x16/0xd0 [ 12.517685] sched_init+0x2f2/0x3eb [ 12.518096] start_kernel+0x1fb/0x42a [ 12.518525] secondary_startup_64+0xa4/0xb0 [ 12.518986] } [ 12.519132] ... key at: [<ffffffff82b7bc28>] __key.71384+0x0/0x8 [ 12.519649] ... acquired at: [ 12.519892] pcpu_freelist_pop+0x7b/0xd0 [ 12.520221] bpf_get_stackid+0x1d2/0x4d0 [ 12.520563] ___bpf_prog_run+0x8b4/0x11a0 [ 12.520887] [ 12.521008] -> (&head->lock){+...} { [ 12.521292] HARDIRQ-ON-W at: [ 12.521539] _raw_spin_lock+0x2f/0x40 [ 12.521950] pcpu_freelist_push+0x2a/0x40 [ 12.522396] bpf_get_stackid+0x494/0x4d0 [ 12.522828] ___bpf_prog_run+0x8b4/0x11a0 [ 12.523296] INITIAL USE at: [ 12.523537] _raw_spin_lock+0x2f/0x40 [ 12.523944] pcpu_freelist_populate+0xc0/0x120 [ 12.524417] htab_map_alloc+0x405/0x500 [ 12.524835] __do_sys_bpf+0x1a3/0x1a90 [ 12.525253] do_syscall_64+0x4a/0x180 [ 12.525659] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe [ 12.526167] } [ 12.526311] ... key at: [<ffffffff838f7668>] __key.13130+0x0/0x8 [ 12.526812] ... acquired at: [ 12.527047] __lock_acquire+0x521/0x1350 [ 12.527371] lock_acquire+0x98/0x190 [ 12.527680] _raw_spin_lock+0x2f/0x40 [ 12.527994] pcpu_freelist_push+0x2a/0x40 [ 12.528325] bpf_get_stackid+0x494/0x4d0 [ 12.528645] ___bpf_prog_run+0x8b4/0x11a0 [ 12.528970] [ 12.529092] [ 12.529092] stack backtrace: [ 12.529444] CPU: 0 PID: 276 Comm: dd Not tainted 5.0.0-rc3-00018-g2fa53f892422 #475 [ 12.530043] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.11.0-2.el7 04/01/2014 [ 12.530750] Call Trace: [ 12.530948] dump_stack+0x5f/0x8b [ 12.531248] check_usage_backwards+0x10c/0x120 [ 12.531598] ? ___bpf_prog_run+0x8b4/0x11a0 [ 12.531935] ? mark_lock+0x382/0x560 [ 12.532229] mark_lock+0x382/0x560 [ 12.532496] ? print_shortest_lock_dependencies+0x180/0x180 [ 12.532928] __lock_acquire+0x521/0x1350 [ 12.533271] ? find_get_entry+0x17f/0x2e0 [ 12.533586] ? find_get_entry+0x19c/0x2e0 [ 12.533902] ? lock_acquire+0x98/0x190 [ 12.534196] lock_acquire+0x98/0x190 [ 12.534482] ? pcpu_freelist_push+0x2a/0x40 [ 12.534810] _raw_spin_lock+0x2f/0x40 [ 12.535099] ? pcpu_freelist_push+0x2a/0x40 [ 12.535432] pcpu_freelist_push+0x2a/0x40 [ 12.535750] bpf_get_stackid+0x494/0x4d0 [ 12.536062] ___bpf_prog_run+0x8b4/0x11a0 It has been explained that is a false positive here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/7/25/756 Recap: - stackmap uses pcpu_freelist - The lock in pcpu_freelist is a percpu lock - stackmap is only used by tracing bpf_prog - A tracing bpf_prog cannot be run if another bpf_prog has already been running (ensured by the percpu bpf_prog_active counter). Eric pointed out that this lockdep splats stops other legit lockdep splats in selftests/bpf/test_progs.c. Fix this by calling local_irq_save/restore for stackmap. Another false positive had also been worked around by calling local_irq_save in commit 89ad2fa3f043 ("bpf: fix lockdep splat"). That commit added unnecessary irq_save/restore to fast path of bpf hash map. irqs are already disabled at that point, since htab is holding per bucket spin_lock with irqsave. Let's reduce overhead for htab by introducing __pcpu_freelist_push/pop function w/o irqsave and convert pcpu_freelist_push/pop to irqsave to be used elsewhere (right now only in stackmap). It stops lockdep false positive in stackmap with a bit of acceptable overhead. Fixes: 557c0c6e7df8 ("bpf: convert stackmap to pre-allocation") Reported-by: Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@linaro.org> Reported-by: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com> Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
2019-01-31 05:12:43 +03:00
raw_spin_unlock(&head->lock);
return node;
}
raw_spin_unlock(&head->lock);
bpf: Use raw_spin_trylock() for pcpu_freelist_push/pop in NMI Recent improvements in LOCKDEP highlighted a potential A-A deadlock with pcpu_freelist in NMI: ./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs -t stacktrace_build_id_nmi [ 18.984807] ================================ [ 18.984807] WARNING: inconsistent lock state [ 18.984808] 5.9.0-rc6-01771-g1466de1330e1 #2967 Not tainted [ 18.984809] -------------------------------- [ 18.984809] inconsistent {INITIAL USE} -> {IN-NMI} usage. [ 18.984810] test_progs/1990 [HC2[2]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] takes: [ 18.984810] ffffe8ffffc219c0 (&head->lock){....}-{2:2}, at: __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984813] {INITIAL USE} state was registered at: [ 18.984814] lock_acquire+0x175/0x7c0 [ 18.984814] _raw_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40 [ 18.984815] __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984815] pcpu_freelist_pop+0x31/0x40 [ 18.984816] htab_map_alloc+0xbbf/0xf40 [ 18.984816] __do_sys_bpf+0x5aa/0x3ed0 [ 18.984817] do_syscall_64+0x2d/0x40 [ 18.984818] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9 [ 18.984818] irq event stamp: 12 [...] [ 18.984822] other info that might help us debug this: [ 18.984823] Possible unsafe locking scenario: [ 18.984823] [ 18.984824] CPU0 [ 18.984824] ---- [ 18.984824] lock(&head->lock); [ 18.984826] <Interrupt> [ 18.984826] lock(&head->lock); [ 18.984827] [ 18.984828] *** DEADLOCK *** [ 18.984828] [ 18.984829] 2 locks held by test_progs/1990: [...] [ 18.984838] <NMI> [ 18.984838] dump_stack+0x9a/0xd0 [ 18.984839] lock_acquire+0x5c9/0x7c0 [ 18.984839] ? lock_release+0x6f0/0x6f0 [ 18.984840] ? __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984840] _raw_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40 [ 18.984841] ? __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984841] __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984842] pcpu_freelist_pop+0x17/0x40 [ 18.984842] ? lock_release+0x6f0/0x6f0 [ 18.984843] __bpf_get_stackid+0x534/0xaf0 [ 18.984843] bpf_prog_1fd9e30e1438d3c5_oncpu+0x73/0x350 [ 18.984844] bpf_overflow_handler+0x12f/0x3f0 This is because pcpu_freelist_head.lock is accessed in both NMI and non-NMI context. Fix this issue by using raw_spin_trylock() in NMI. Since NMI interrupts non-NMI context, when NMI context tries to lock the raw_spinlock, non-NMI context of the same CPU may already have locked a lock and is blocked from unlocking the lock. For a system with N CPUs, there could be N NMIs at the same time, and they may block N non-NMI raw_spinlocks. This is tricky for pcpu_freelist_push(), where unlike _pop(), failing _push() means leaking memory. This issue is more likely to trigger in non-SMP system. Fix this issue with an extra list, pcpu_freelist.extralist. The extralist is primarily used to take _push() when raw_spin_trylock() failed on all the per CPU lists. It should be empty most of the time. The following table summarizes the behavior of pcpu_freelist in NMI and non-NMI: non-NMI pop(): use _lock(); check per CPU lists first; if all per CPU lists are empty, check extralist; if extralist is empty, return NULL. non-NMI push(): use _lock(); only push to per CPU lists. NMI pop(): use _trylock(); check per CPU lists first; if all per CPU lists are locked or empty, check extralist; if extralist is locked or empty, return NULL. NMI push(): use _trylock(); check per CPU lists first; if all per CPU lists are locked; try push to extralist; if extralist is also locked, keep trying on per CPU lists. Reported-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20201005165838.3735218-1-songliubraving@fb.com
2020-10-05 19:58:38 +03:00
}
/* per cpu lists are all empty, try extralist */
bpf: avoid grabbing spin_locks of all cpus when no free elems This patch use head->first in pcpu_freelist_head to check freelist having free or not. If having, grab spin_lock, or check next cpu's freelist. Before patch: hash_map performance ./map_perf_test 1 0:hash_map_perf pre-alloc 1043397 events per sec ... The average of the test results is around 1050000 events per sec. hash_map the worst: no free ./run_bench_bpf_hashmap_full_update.sh Setting up benchmark 'bpf-hashmap-ful-update'... Benchmark 'bpf-hashmap-ful-update' started. 1:hash_map_full_perf 15687 events per sec ... The average of the test results is around 16000 events per sec. ftrace trace: 0) | htab_map_update_elem() { 0) | __pcpu_freelist_pop() { 0) | _raw_spin_lock() 0) | _raw_spin_unlock() 0) | ... 0) + 25.188 us | } 0) + 28.439 us | } The test machine is 16C, trying to get spin_lock 17 times, in addition to 16c, there is an extralist. after patch: hash_map performance ./map_perf_test 1 0:hash_map_perf pre-alloc 1053298 events per sec ... The average of the test results is around 1050000 events per sec. hash_map worst: no free ./run_bench_bpf_hashmap_full_update.sh Setting up benchmark 'bpf-hashmap-ful-update'... Benchmark 'bpf-hashmap-ful-update' started. 1:hash_map_full_perf 555830 events per sec ... The average of the test results is around 550000 events per sec. ftrace trace: 0) | htab_map_update_elem() { 0) | alloc_htab_elem() { 0) 0.586 us | __pcpu_freelist_pop(); 0) 0.945 us | } 0) 8.669 us | } It can be seen that after adding this patch, the map performance is almost not degraded, and when free=0, first check head->first instead of directly acquiring spin_lock. Co-developed-by: Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@bytedance.com> Signed-off-by: Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@bytedance.com> Signed-off-by: Feng Zhou <zhoufeng.zf@bytedance.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220610023308.93798-2-zhoufeng.zf@bytedance.com Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
2022-06-10 05:33:07 +03:00
if (!READ_ONCE(s->extralist.first))
return NULL;
bpf: Use raw_spin_trylock() for pcpu_freelist_push/pop in NMI Recent improvements in LOCKDEP highlighted a potential A-A deadlock with pcpu_freelist in NMI: ./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs -t stacktrace_build_id_nmi [ 18.984807] ================================ [ 18.984807] WARNING: inconsistent lock state [ 18.984808] 5.9.0-rc6-01771-g1466de1330e1 #2967 Not tainted [ 18.984809] -------------------------------- [ 18.984809] inconsistent {INITIAL USE} -> {IN-NMI} usage. [ 18.984810] test_progs/1990 [HC2[2]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] takes: [ 18.984810] ffffe8ffffc219c0 (&head->lock){....}-{2:2}, at: __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984813] {INITIAL USE} state was registered at: [ 18.984814] lock_acquire+0x175/0x7c0 [ 18.984814] _raw_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40 [ 18.984815] __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984815] pcpu_freelist_pop+0x31/0x40 [ 18.984816] htab_map_alloc+0xbbf/0xf40 [ 18.984816] __do_sys_bpf+0x5aa/0x3ed0 [ 18.984817] do_syscall_64+0x2d/0x40 [ 18.984818] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9 [ 18.984818] irq event stamp: 12 [...] [ 18.984822] other info that might help us debug this: [ 18.984823] Possible unsafe locking scenario: [ 18.984823] [ 18.984824] CPU0 [ 18.984824] ---- [ 18.984824] lock(&head->lock); [ 18.984826] <Interrupt> [ 18.984826] lock(&head->lock); [ 18.984827] [ 18.984828] *** DEADLOCK *** [ 18.984828] [ 18.984829] 2 locks held by test_progs/1990: [...] [ 18.984838] <NMI> [ 18.984838] dump_stack+0x9a/0xd0 [ 18.984839] lock_acquire+0x5c9/0x7c0 [ 18.984839] ? lock_release+0x6f0/0x6f0 [ 18.984840] ? __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984840] _raw_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40 [ 18.984841] ? __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984841] __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984842] pcpu_freelist_pop+0x17/0x40 [ 18.984842] ? lock_release+0x6f0/0x6f0 [ 18.984843] __bpf_get_stackid+0x534/0xaf0 [ 18.984843] bpf_prog_1fd9e30e1438d3c5_oncpu+0x73/0x350 [ 18.984844] bpf_overflow_handler+0x12f/0x3f0 This is because pcpu_freelist_head.lock is accessed in both NMI and non-NMI context. Fix this issue by using raw_spin_trylock() in NMI. Since NMI interrupts non-NMI context, when NMI context tries to lock the raw_spinlock, non-NMI context of the same CPU may already have locked a lock and is blocked from unlocking the lock. For a system with N CPUs, there could be N NMIs at the same time, and they may block N non-NMI raw_spinlocks. This is tricky for pcpu_freelist_push(), where unlike _pop(), failing _push() means leaking memory. This issue is more likely to trigger in non-SMP system. Fix this issue with an extra list, pcpu_freelist.extralist. The extralist is primarily used to take _push() when raw_spin_trylock() failed on all the per CPU lists. It should be empty most of the time. The following table summarizes the behavior of pcpu_freelist in NMI and non-NMI: non-NMI pop(): use _lock(); check per CPU lists first; if all per CPU lists are empty, check extralist; if extralist is empty, return NULL. non-NMI push(): use _lock(); only push to per CPU lists. NMI pop(): use _trylock(); check per CPU lists first; if all per CPU lists are locked or empty, check extralist; if extralist is locked or empty, return NULL. NMI push(): use _trylock(); check per CPU lists first; if all per CPU lists are locked; try push to extralist; if extralist is also locked, keep trying on per CPU lists. Reported-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20201005165838.3735218-1-songliubraving@fb.com
2020-10-05 19:58:38 +03:00
raw_spin_lock(&s->extralist.lock);
node = s->extralist.first;
if (node)
bpf: avoid grabbing spin_locks of all cpus when no free elems This patch use head->first in pcpu_freelist_head to check freelist having free or not. If having, grab spin_lock, or check next cpu's freelist. Before patch: hash_map performance ./map_perf_test 1 0:hash_map_perf pre-alloc 1043397 events per sec ... The average of the test results is around 1050000 events per sec. hash_map the worst: no free ./run_bench_bpf_hashmap_full_update.sh Setting up benchmark 'bpf-hashmap-ful-update'... Benchmark 'bpf-hashmap-ful-update' started. 1:hash_map_full_perf 15687 events per sec ... The average of the test results is around 16000 events per sec. ftrace trace: 0) | htab_map_update_elem() { 0) | __pcpu_freelist_pop() { 0) | _raw_spin_lock() 0) | _raw_spin_unlock() 0) | ... 0) + 25.188 us | } 0) + 28.439 us | } The test machine is 16C, trying to get spin_lock 17 times, in addition to 16c, there is an extralist. after patch: hash_map performance ./map_perf_test 1 0:hash_map_perf pre-alloc 1053298 events per sec ... The average of the test results is around 1050000 events per sec. hash_map worst: no free ./run_bench_bpf_hashmap_full_update.sh Setting up benchmark 'bpf-hashmap-ful-update'... Benchmark 'bpf-hashmap-ful-update' started. 1:hash_map_full_perf 555830 events per sec ... The average of the test results is around 550000 events per sec. ftrace trace: 0) | htab_map_update_elem() { 0) | alloc_htab_elem() { 0) 0.586 us | __pcpu_freelist_pop(); 0) 0.945 us | } 0) 8.669 us | } It can be seen that after adding this patch, the map performance is almost not degraded, and when free=0, first check head->first instead of directly acquiring spin_lock. Co-developed-by: Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@bytedance.com> Signed-off-by: Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@bytedance.com> Signed-off-by: Feng Zhou <zhoufeng.zf@bytedance.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220610023308.93798-2-zhoufeng.zf@bytedance.com Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
2022-06-10 05:33:07 +03:00
WRITE_ONCE(s->extralist.first, node->next);
bpf: Use raw_spin_trylock() for pcpu_freelist_push/pop in NMI Recent improvements in LOCKDEP highlighted a potential A-A deadlock with pcpu_freelist in NMI: ./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs -t stacktrace_build_id_nmi [ 18.984807] ================================ [ 18.984807] WARNING: inconsistent lock state [ 18.984808] 5.9.0-rc6-01771-g1466de1330e1 #2967 Not tainted [ 18.984809] -------------------------------- [ 18.984809] inconsistent {INITIAL USE} -> {IN-NMI} usage. [ 18.984810] test_progs/1990 [HC2[2]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] takes: [ 18.984810] ffffe8ffffc219c0 (&head->lock){....}-{2:2}, at: __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984813] {INITIAL USE} state was registered at: [ 18.984814] lock_acquire+0x175/0x7c0 [ 18.984814] _raw_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40 [ 18.984815] __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984815] pcpu_freelist_pop+0x31/0x40 [ 18.984816] htab_map_alloc+0xbbf/0xf40 [ 18.984816] __do_sys_bpf+0x5aa/0x3ed0 [ 18.984817] do_syscall_64+0x2d/0x40 [ 18.984818] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9 [ 18.984818] irq event stamp: 12 [...] [ 18.984822] other info that might help us debug this: [ 18.984823] Possible unsafe locking scenario: [ 18.984823] [ 18.984824] CPU0 [ 18.984824] ---- [ 18.984824] lock(&head->lock); [ 18.984826] <Interrupt> [ 18.984826] lock(&head->lock); [ 18.984827] [ 18.984828] *** DEADLOCK *** [ 18.984828] [ 18.984829] 2 locks held by test_progs/1990: [...] [ 18.984838] <NMI> [ 18.984838] dump_stack+0x9a/0xd0 [ 18.984839] lock_acquire+0x5c9/0x7c0 [ 18.984839] ? lock_release+0x6f0/0x6f0 [ 18.984840] ? __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984840] _raw_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40 [ 18.984841] ? __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984841] __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984842] pcpu_freelist_pop+0x17/0x40 [ 18.984842] ? lock_release+0x6f0/0x6f0 [ 18.984843] __bpf_get_stackid+0x534/0xaf0 [ 18.984843] bpf_prog_1fd9e30e1438d3c5_oncpu+0x73/0x350 [ 18.984844] bpf_overflow_handler+0x12f/0x3f0 This is because pcpu_freelist_head.lock is accessed in both NMI and non-NMI context. Fix this issue by using raw_spin_trylock() in NMI. Since NMI interrupts non-NMI context, when NMI context tries to lock the raw_spinlock, non-NMI context of the same CPU may already have locked a lock and is blocked from unlocking the lock. For a system with N CPUs, there could be N NMIs at the same time, and they may block N non-NMI raw_spinlocks. This is tricky for pcpu_freelist_push(), where unlike _pop(), failing _push() means leaking memory. This issue is more likely to trigger in non-SMP system. Fix this issue with an extra list, pcpu_freelist.extralist. The extralist is primarily used to take _push() when raw_spin_trylock() failed on all the per CPU lists. It should be empty most of the time. The following table summarizes the behavior of pcpu_freelist in NMI and non-NMI: non-NMI pop(): use _lock(); check per CPU lists first; if all per CPU lists are empty, check extralist; if extralist is empty, return NULL. non-NMI push(): use _lock(); only push to per CPU lists. NMI pop(): use _trylock(); check per CPU lists first; if all per CPU lists are locked or empty, check extralist; if extralist is locked or empty, return NULL. NMI push(): use _trylock(); check per CPU lists first; if all per CPU lists are locked; try push to extralist; if extralist is also locked, keep trying on per CPU lists. Reported-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20201005165838.3735218-1-songliubraving@fb.com
2020-10-05 19:58:38 +03:00
raw_spin_unlock(&s->extralist.lock);
return node;
}
static struct pcpu_freelist_node *
___pcpu_freelist_pop_nmi(struct pcpu_freelist *s)
{
struct pcpu_freelist_head *head;
struct pcpu_freelist_node *node;
int cpu;
bpf: Use raw_spin_trylock() for pcpu_freelist_push/pop in NMI Recent improvements in LOCKDEP highlighted a potential A-A deadlock with pcpu_freelist in NMI: ./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs -t stacktrace_build_id_nmi [ 18.984807] ================================ [ 18.984807] WARNING: inconsistent lock state [ 18.984808] 5.9.0-rc6-01771-g1466de1330e1 #2967 Not tainted [ 18.984809] -------------------------------- [ 18.984809] inconsistent {INITIAL USE} -> {IN-NMI} usage. [ 18.984810] test_progs/1990 [HC2[2]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] takes: [ 18.984810] ffffe8ffffc219c0 (&head->lock){....}-{2:2}, at: __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984813] {INITIAL USE} state was registered at: [ 18.984814] lock_acquire+0x175/0x7c0 [ 18.984814] _raw_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40 [ 18.984815] __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984815] pcpu_freelist_pop+0x31/0x40 [ 18.984816] htab_map_alloc+0xbbf/0xf40 [ 18.984816] __do_sys_bpf+0x5aa/0x3ed0 [ 18.984817] do_syscall_64+0x2d/0x40 [ 18.984818] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9 [ 18.984818] irq event stamp: 12 [...] [ 18.984822] other info that might help us debug this: [ 18.984823] Possible unsafe locking scenario: [ 18.984823] [ 18.984824] CPU0 [ 18.984824] ---- [ 18.984824] lock(&head->lock); [ 18.984826] <Interrupt> [ 18.984826] lock(&head->lock); [ 18.984827] [ 18.984828] *** DEADLOCK *** [ 18.984828] [ 18.984829] 2 locks held by test_progs/1990: [...] [ 18.984838] <NMI> [ 18.984838] dump_stack+0x9a/0xd0 [ 18.984839] lock_acquire+0x5c9/0x7c0 [ 18.984839] ? lock_release+0x6f0/0x6f0 [ 18.984840] ? __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984840] _raw_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40 [ 18.984841] ? __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984841] __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984842] pcpu_freelist_pop+0x17/0x40 [ 18.984842] ? lock_release+0x6f0/0x6f0 [ 18.984843] __bpf_get_stackid+0x534/0xaf0 [ 18.984843] bpf_prog_1fd9e30e1438d3c5_oncpu+0x73/0x350 [ 18.984844] bpf_overflow_handler+0x12f/0x3f0 This is because pcpu_freelist_head.lock is accessed in both NMI and non-NMI context. Fix this issue by using raw_spin_trylock() in NMI. Since NMI interrupts non-NMI context, when NMI context tries to lock the raw_spinlock, non-NMI context of the same CPU may already have locked a lock and is blocked from unlocking the lock. For a system with N CPUs, there could be N NMIs at the same time, and they may block N non-NMI raw_spinlocks. This is tricky for pcpu_freelist_push(), where unlike _pop(), failing _push() means leaking memory. This issue is more likely to trigger in non-SMP system. Fix this issue with an extra list, pcpu_freelist.extralist. The extralist is primarily used to take _push() when raw_spin_trylock() failed on all the per CPU lists. It should be empty most of the time. The following table summarizes the behavior of pcpu_freelist in NMI and non-NMI: non-NMI pop(): use _lock(); check per CPU lists first; if all per CPU lists are empty, check extralist; if extralist is empty, return NULL. non-NMI push(): use _lock(); only push to per CPU lists. NMI pop(): use _trylock(); check per CPU lists first; if all per CPU lists are locked or empty, check extralist; if extralist is locked or empty, return NULL. NMI push(): use _trylock(); check per CPU lists first; if all per CPU lists are locked; try push to extralist; if extralist is also locked, keep trying on per CPU lists. Reported-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20201005165838.3735218-1-songliubraving@fb.com
2020-10-05 19:58:38 +03:00
for_each_cpu_wrap(cpu, cpu_possible_mask, raw_smp_processor_id()) {
bpf: Use raw_spin_trylock() for pcpu_freelist_push/pop in NMI Recent improvements in LOCKDEP highlighted a potential A-A deadlock with pcpu_freelist in NMI: ./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs -t stacktrace_build_id_nmi [ 18.984807] ================================ [ 18.984807] WARNING: inconsistent lock state [ 18.984808] 5.9.0-rc6-01771-g1466de1330e1 #2967 Not tainted [ 18.984809] -------------------------------- [ 18.984809] inconsistent {INITIAL USE} -> {IN-NMI} usage. [ 18.984810] test_progs/1990 [HC2[2]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] takes: [ 18.984810] ffffe8ffffc219c0 (&head->lock){....}-{2:2}, at: __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984813] {INITIAL USE} state was registered at: [ 18.984814] lock_acquire+0x175/0x7c0 [ 18.984814] _raw_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40 [ 18.984815] __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984815] pcpu_freelist_pop+0x31/0x40 [ 18.984816] htab_map_alloc+0xbbf/0xf40 [ 18.984816] __do_sys_bpf+0x5aa/0x3ed0 [ 18.984817] do_syscall_64+0x2d/0x40 [ 18.984818] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9 [ 18.984818] irq event stamp: 12 [...] [ 18.984822] other info that might help us debug this: [ 18.984823] Possible unsafe locking scenario: [ 18.984823] [ 18.984824] CPU0 [ 18.984824] ---- [ 18.984824] lock(&head->lock); [ 18.984826] <Interrupt> [ 18.984826] lock(&head->lock); [ 18.984827] [ 18.984828] *** DEADLOCK *** [ 18.984828] [ 18.984829] 2 locks held by test_progs/1990: [...] [ 18.984838] <NMI> [ 18.984838] dump_stack+0x9a/0xd0 [ 18.984839] lock_acquire+0x5c9/0x7c0 [ 18.984839] ? lock_release+0x6f0/0x6f0 [ 18.984840] ? __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984840] _raw_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40 [ 18.984841] ? __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984841] __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984842] pcpu_freelist_pop+0x17/0x40 [ 18.984842] ? lock_release+0x6f0/0x6f0 [ 18.984843] __bpf_get_stackid+0x534/0xaf0 [ 18.984843] bpf_prog_1fd9e30e1438d3c5_oncpu+0x73/0x350 [ 18.984844] bpf_overflow_handler+0x12f/0x3f0 This is because pcpu_freelist_head.lock is accessed in both NMI and non-NMI context. Fix this issue by using raw_spin_trylock() in NMI. Since NMI interrupts non-NMI context, when NMI context tries to lock the raw_spinlock, non-NMI context of the same CPU may already have locked a lock and is blocked from unlocking the lock. For a system with N CPUs, there could be N NMIs at the same time, and they may block N non-NMI raw_spinlocks. This is tricky for pcpu_freelist_push(), where unlike _pop(), failing _push() means leaking memory. This issue is more likely to trigger in non-SMP system. Fix this issue with an extra list, pcpu_freelist.extralist. The extralist is primarily used to take _push() when raw_spin_trylock() failed on all the per CPU lists. It should be empty most of the time. The following table summarizes the behavior of pcpu_freelist in NMI and non-NMI: non-NMI pop(): use _lock(); check per CPU lists first; if all per CPU lists are empty, check extralist; if extralist is empty, return NULL. non-NMI push(): use _lock(); only push to per CPU lists. NMI pop(): use _trylock(); check per CPU lists first; if all per CPU lists are locked or empty, check extralist; if extralist is locked or empty, return NULL. NMI push(): use _trylock(); check per CPU lists first; if all per CPU lists are locked; try push to extralist; if extralist is also locked, keep trying on per CPU lists. Reported-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20201005165838.3735218-1-songliubraving@fb.com
2020-10-05 19:58:38 +03:00
head = per_cpu_ptr(s->freelist, cpu);
bpf: avoid grabbing spin_locks of all cpus when no free elems This patch use head->first in pcpu_freelist_head to check freelist having free or not. If having, grab spin_lock, or check next cpu's freelist. Before patch: hash_map performance ./map_perf_test 1 0:hash_map_perf pre-alloc 1043397 events per sec ... The average of the test results is around 1050000 events per sec. hash_map the worst: no free ./run_bench_bpf_hashmap_full_update.sh Setting up benchmark 'bpf-hashmap-ful-update'... Benchmark 'bpf-hashmap-ful-update' started. 1:hash_map_full_perf 15687 events per sec ... The average of the test results is around 16000 events per sec. ftrace trace: 0) | htab_map_update_elem() { 0) | __pcpu_freelist_pop() { 0) | _raw_spin_lock() 0) | _raw_spin_unlock() 0) | ... 0) + 25.188 us | } 0) + 28.439 us | } The test machine is 16C, trying to get spin_lock 17 times, in addition to 16c, there is an extralist. after patch: hash_map performance ./map_perf_test 1 0:hash_map_perf pre-alloc 1053298 events per sec ... The average of the test results is around 1050000 events per sec. hash_map worst: no free ./run_bench_bpf_hashmap_full_update.sh Setting up benchmark 'bpf-hashmap-ful-update'... Benchmark 'bpf-hashmap-ful-update' started. 1:hash_map_full_perf 555830 events per sec ... The average of the test results is around 550000 events per sec. ftrace trace: 0) | htab_map_update_elem() { 0) | alloc_htab_elem() { 0) 0.586 us | __pcpu_freelist_pop(); 0) 0.945 us | } 0) 8.669 us | } It can be seen that after adding this patch, the map performance is almost not degraded, and when free=0, first check head->first instead of directly acquiring spin_lock. Co-developed-by: Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@bytedance.com> Signed-off-by: Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@bytedance.com> Signed-off-by: Feng Zhou <zhoufeng.zf@bytedance.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220610023308.93798-2-zhoufeng.zf@bytedance.com Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
2022-06-10 05:33:07 +03:00
if (!READ_ONCE(head->first))
continue;
bpf: Use raw_spin_trylock() for pcpu_freelist_push/pop in NMI Recent improvements in LOCKDEP highlighted a potential A-A deadlock with pcpu_freelist in NMI: ./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs -t stacktrace_build_id_nmi [ 18.984807] ================================ [ 18.984807] WARNING: inconsistent lock state [ 18.984808] 5.9.0-rc6-01771-g1466de1330e1 #2967 Not tainted [ 18.984809] -------------------------------- [ 18.984809] inconsistent {INITIAL USE} -> {IN-NMI} usage. [ 18.984810] test_progs/1990 [HC2[2]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] takes: [ 18.984810] ffffe8ffffc219c0 (&head->lock){....}-{2:2}, at: __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984813] {INITIAL USE} state was registered at: [ 18.984814] lock_acquire+0x175/0x7c0 [ 18.984814] _raw_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40 [ 18.984815] __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984815] pcpu_freelist_pop+0x31/0x40 [ 18.984816] htab_map_alloc+0xbbf/0xf40 [ 18.984816] __do_sys_bpf+0x5aa/0x3ed0 [ 18.984817] do_syscall_64+0x2d/0x40 [ 18.984818] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9 [ 18.984818] irq event stamp: 12 [...] [ 18.984822] other info that might help us debug this: [ 18.984823] Possible unsafe locking scenario: [ 18.984823] [ 18.984824] CPU0 [ 18.984824] ---- [ 18.984824] lock(&head->lock); [ 18.984826] <Interrupt> [ 18.984826] lock(&head->lock); [ 18.984827] [ 18.984828] *** DEADLOCK *** [ 18.984828] [ 18.984829] 2 locks held by test_progs/1990: [...] [ 18.984838] <NMI> [ 18.984838] dump_stack+0x9a/0xd0 [ 18.984839] lock_acquire+0x5c9/0x7c0 [ 18.984839] ? lock_release+0x6f0/0x6f0 [ 18.984840] ? __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984840] _raw_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40 [ 18.984841] ? __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984841] __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984842] pcpu_freelist_pop+0x17/0x40 [ 18.984842] ? lock_release+0x6f0/0x6f0 [ 18.984843] __bpf_get_stackid+0x534/0xaf0 [ 18.984843] bpf_prog_1fd9e30e1438d3c5_oncpu+0x73/0x350 [ 18.984844] bpf_overflow_handler+0x12f/0x3f0 This is because pcpu_freelist_head.lock is accessed in both NMI and non-NMI context. Fix this issue by using raw_spin_trylock() in NMI. Since NMI interrupts non-NMI context, when NMI context tries to lock the raw_spinlock, non-NMI context of the same CPU may already have locked a lock and is blocked from unlocking the lock. For a system with N CPUs, there could be N NMIs at the same time, and they may block N non-NMI raw_spinlocks. This is tricky for pcpu_freelist_push(), where unlike _pop(), failing _push() means leaking memory. This issue is more likely to trigger in non-SMP system. Fix this issue with an extra list, pcpu_freelist.extralist. The extralist is primarily used to take _push() when raw_spin_trylock() failed on all the per CPU lists. It should be empty most of the time. The following table summarizes the behavior of pcpu_freelist in NMI and non-NMI: non-NMI pop(): use _lock(); check per CPU lists first; if all per CPU lists are empty, check extralist; if extralist is empty, return NULL. non-NMI push(): use _lock(); only push to per CPU lists. NMI pop(): use _trylock(); check per CPU lists first; if all per CPU lists are locked or empty, check extralist; if extralist is locked or empty, return NULL. NMI push(): use _trylock(); check per CPU lists first; if all per CPU lists are locked; try push to extralist; if extralist is also locked, keep trying on per CPU lists. Reported-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20201005165838.3735218-1-songliubraving@fb.com
2020-10-05 19:58:38 +03:00
if (raw_spin_trylock(&head->lock)) {
node = head->first;
if (node) {
bpf: avoid grabbing spin_locks of all cpus when no free elems This patch use head->first in pcpu_freelist_head to check freelist having free or not. If having, grab spin_lock, or check next cpu's freelist. Before patch: hash_map performance ./map_perf_test 1 0:hash_map_perf pre-alloc 1043397 events per sec ... The average of the test results is around 1050000 events per sec. hash_map the worst: no free ./run_bench_bpf_hashmap_full_update.sh Setting up benchmark 'bpf-hashmap-ful-update'... Benchmark 'bpf-hashmap-ful-update' started. 1:hash_map_full_perf 15687 events per sec ... The average of the test results is around 16000 events per sec. ftrace trace: 0) | htab_map_update_elem() { 0) | __pcpu_freelist_pop() { 0) | _raw_spin_lock() 0) | _raw_spin_unlock() 0) | ... 0) + 25.188 us | } 0) + 28.439 us | } The test machine is 16C, trying to get spin_lock 17 times, in addition to 16c, there is an extralist. after patch: hash_map performance ./map_perf_test 1 0:hash_map_perf pre-alloc 1053298 events per sec ... The average of the test results is around 1050000 events per sec. hash_map worst: no free ./run_bench_bpf_hashmap_full_update.sh Setting up benchmark 'bpf-hashmap-ful-update'... Benchmark 'bpf-hashmap-ful-update' started. 1:hash_map_full_perf 555830 events per sec ... The average of the test results is around 550000 events per sec. ftrace trace: 0) | htab_map_update_elem() { 0) | alloc_htab_elem() { 0) 0.586 us | __pcpu_freelist_pop(); 0) 0.945 us | } 0) 8.669 us | } It can be seen that after adding this patch, the map performance is almost not degraded, and when free=0, first check head->first instead of directly acquiring spin_lock. Co-developed-by: Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@bytedance.com> Signed-off-by: Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@bytedance.com> Signed-off-by: Feng Zhou <zhoufeng.zf@bytedance.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220610023308.93798-2-zhoufeng.zf@bytedance.com Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
2022-06-10 05:33:07 +03:00
WRITE_ONCE(head->first, node->next);
bpf: Use raw_spin_trylock() for pcpu_freelist_push/pop in NMI Recent improvements in LOCKDEP highlighted a potential A-A deadlock with pcpu_freelist in NMI: ./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs -t stacktrace_build_id_nmi [ 18.984807] ================================ [ 18.984807] WARNING: inconsistent lock state [ 18.984808] 5.9.0-rc6-01771-g1466de1330e1 #2967 Not tainted [ 18.984809] -------------------------------- [ 18.984809] inconsistent {INITIAL USE} -> {IN-NMI} usage. [ 18.984810] test_progs/1990 [HC2[2]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] takes: [ 18.984810] ffffe8ffffc219c0 (&head->lock){....}-{2:2}, at: __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984813] {INITIAL USE} state was registered at: [ 18.984814] lock_acquire+0x175/0x7c0 [ 18.984814] _raw_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40 [ 18.984815] __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984815] pcpu_freelist_pop+0x31/0x40 [ 18.984816] htab_map_alloc+0xbbf/0xf40 [ 18.984816] __do_sys_bpf+0x5aa/0x3ed0 [ 18.984817] do_syscall_64+0x2d/0x40 [ 18.984818] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9 [ 18.984818] irq event stamp: 12 [...] [ 18.984822] other info that might help us debug this: [ 18.984823] Possible unsafe locking scenario: [ 18.984823] [ 18.984824] CPU0 [ 18.984824] ---- [ 18.984824] lock(&head->lock); [ 18.984826] <Interrupt> [ 18.984826] lock(&head->lock); [ 18.984827] [ 18.984828] *** DEADLOCK *** [ 18.984828] [ 18.984829] 2 locks held by test_progs/1990: [...] [ 18.984838] <NMI> [ 18.984838] dump_stack+0x9a/0xd0 [ 18.984839] lock_acquire+0x5c9/0x7c0 [ 18.984839] ? lock_release+0x6f0/0x6f0 [ 18.984840] ? __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984840] _raw_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40 [ 18.984841] ? __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984841] __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984842] pcpu_freelist_pop+0x17/0x40 [ 18.984842] ? lock_release+0x6f0/0x6f0 [ 18.984843] __bpf_get_stackid+0x534/0xaf0 [ 18.984843] bpf_prog_1fd9e30e1438d3c5_oncpu+0x73/0x350 [ 18.984844] bpf_overflow_handler+0x12f/0x3f0 This is because pcpu_freelist_head.lock is accessed in both NMI and non-NMI context. Fix this issue by using raw_spin_trylock() in NMI. Since NMI interrupts non-NMI context, when NMI context tries to lock the raw_spinlock, non-NMI context of the same CPU may already have locked a lock and is blocked from unlocking the lock. For a system with N CPUs, there could be N NMIs at the same time, and they may block N non-NMI raw_spinlocks. This is tricky for pcpu_freelist_push(), where unlike _pop(), failing _push() means leaking memory. This issue is more likely to trigger in non-SMP system. Fix this issue with an extra list, pcpu_freelist.extralist. The extralist is primarily used to take _push() when raw_spin_trylock() failed on all the per CPU lists. It should be empty most of the time. The following table summarizes the behavior of pcpu_freelist in NMI and non-NMI: non-NMI pop(): use _lock(); check per CPU lists first; if all per CPU lists are empty, check extralist; if extralist is empty, return NULL. non-NMI push(): use _lock(); only push to per CPU lists. NMI pop(): use _trylock(); check per CPU lists first; if all per CPU lists are locked or empty, check extralist; if extralist is locked or empty, return NULL. NMI push(): use _trylock(); check per CPU lists first; if all per CPU lists are locked; try push to extralist; if extralist is also locked, keep trying on per CPU lists. Reported-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20201005165838.3735218-1-songliubraving@fb.com
2020-10-05 19:58:38 +03:00
raw_spin_unlock(&head->lock);
return node;
}
raw_spin_unlock(&head->lock);
}
}
bpf: Use raw_spin_trylock() for pcpu_freelist_push/pop in NMI Recent improvements in LOCKDEP highlighted a potential A-A deadlock with pcpu_freelist in NMI: ./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs -t stacktrace_build_id_nmi [ 18.984807] ================================ [ 18.984807] WARNING: inconsistent lock state [ 18.984808] 5.9.0-rc6-01771-g1466de1330e1 #2967 Not tainted [ 18.984809] -------------------------------- [ 18.984809] inconsistent {INITIAL USE} -> {IN-NMI} usage. [ 18.984810] test_progs/1990 [HC2[2]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] takes: [ 18.984810] ffffe8ffffc219c0 (&head->lock){....}-{2:2}, at: __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984813] {INITIAL USE} state was registered at: [ 18.984814] lock_acquire+0x175/0x7c0 [ 18.984814] _raw_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40 [ 18.984815] __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984815] pcpu_freelist_pop+0x31/0x40 [ 18.984816] htab_map_alloc+0xbbf/0xf40 [ 18.984816] __do_sys_bpf+0x5aa/0x3ed0 [ 18.984817] do_syscall_64+0x2d/0x40 [ 18.984818] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9 [ 18.984818] irq event stamp: 12 [...] [ 18.984822] other info that might help us debug this: [ 18.984823] Possible unsafe locking scenario: [ 18.984823] [ 18.984824] CPU0 [ 18.984824] ---- [ 18.984824] lock(&head->lock); [ 18.984826] <Interrupt> [ 18.984826] lock(&head->lock); [ 18.984827] [ 18.984828] *** DEADLOCK *** [ 18.984828] [ 18.984829] 2 locks held by test_progs/1990: [...] [ 18.984838] <NMI> [ 18.984838] dump_stack+0x9a/0xd0 [ 18.984839] lock_acquire+0x5c9/0x7c0 [ 18.984839] ? lock_release+0x6f0/0x6f0 [ 18.984840] ? __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984840] _raw_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40 [ 18.984841] ? __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984841] __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984842] pcpu_freelist_pop+0x17/0x40 [ 18.984842] ? lock_release+0x6f0/0x6f0 [ 18.984843] __bpf_get_stackid+0x534/0xaf0 [ 18.984843] bpf_prog_1fd9e30e1438d3c5_oncpu+0x73/0x350 [ 18.984844] bpf_overflow_handler+0x12f/0x3f0 This is because pcpu_freelist_head.lock is accessed in both NMI and non-NMI context. Fix this issue by using raw_spin_trylock() in NMI. Since NMI interrupts non-NMI context, when NMI context tries to lock the raw_spinlock, non-NMI context of the same CPU may already have locked a lock and is blocked from unlocking the lock. For a system with N CPUs, there could be N NMIs at the same time, and they may block N non-NMI raw_spinlocks. This is tricky for pcpu_freelist_push(), where unlike _pop(), failing _push() means leaking memory. This issue is more likely to trigger in non-SMP system. Fix this issue with an extra list, pcpu_freelist.extralist. The extralist is primarily used to take _push() when raw_spin_trylock() failed on all the per CPU lists. It should be empty most of the time. The following table summarizes the behavior of pcpu_freelist in NMI and non-NMI: non-NMI pop(): use _lock(); check per CPU lists first; if all per CPU lists are empty, check extralist; if extralist is empty, return NULL. non-NMI push(): use _lock(); only push to per CPU lists. NMI pop(): use _trylock(); check per CPU lists first; if all per CPU lists are locked or empty, check extralist; if extralist is locked or empty, return NULL. NMI push(): use _trylock(); check per CPU lists first; if all per CPU lists are locked; try push to extralist; if extralist is also locked, keep trying on per CPU lists. Reported-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20201005165838.3735218-1-songliubraving@fb.com
2020-10-05 19:58:38 +03:00
/* cannot pop from per cpu lists, try extralist */
bpf: avoid grabbing spin_locks of all cpus when no free elems This patch use head->first in pcpu_freelist_head to check freelist having free or not. If having, grab spin_lock, or check next cpu's freelist. Before patch: hash_map performance ./map_perf_test 1 0:hash_map_perf pre-alloc 1043397 events per sec ... The average of the test results is around 1050000 events per sec. hash_map the worst: no free ./run_bench_bpf_hashmap_full_update.sh Setting up benchmark 'bpf-hashmap-ful-update'... Benchmark 'bpf-hashmap-ful-update' started. 1:hash_map_full_perf 15687 events per sec ... The average of the test results is around 16000 events per sec. ftrace trace: 0) | htab_map_update_elem() { 0) | __pcpu_freelist_pop() { 0) | _raw_spin_lock() 0) | _raw_spin_unlock() 0) | ... 0) + 25.188 us | } 0) + 28.439 us | } The test machine is 16C, trying to get spin_lock 17 times, in addition to 16c, there is an extralist. after patch: hash_map performance ./map_perf_test 1 0:hash_map_perf pre-alloc 1053298 events per sec ... The average of the test results is around 1050000 events per sec. hash_map worst: no free ./run_bench_bpf_hashmap_full_update.sh Setting up benchmark 'bpf-hashmap-ful-update'... Benchmark 'bpf-hashmap-ful-update' started. 1:hash_map_full_perf 555830 events per sec ... The average of the test results is around 550000 events per sec. ftrace trace: 0) | htab_map_update_elem() { 0) | alloc_htab_elem() { 0) 0.586 us | __pcpu_freelist_pop(); 0) 0.945 us | } 0) 8.669 us | } It can be seen that after adding this patch, the map performance is almost not degraded, and when free=0, first check head->first instead of directly acquiring spin_lock. Co-developed-by: Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@bytedance.com> Signed-off-by: Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@bytedance.com> Signed-off-by: Feng Zhou <zhoufeng.zf@bytedance.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220610023308.93798-2-zhoufeng.zf@bytedance.com Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
2022-06-10 05:33:07 +03:00
if (!READ_ONCE(s->extralist.first) || !raw_spin_trylock(&s->extralist.lock))
bpf: Use raw_spin_trylock() for pcpu_freelist_push/pop in NMI Recent improvements in LOCKDEP highlighted a potential A-A deadlock with pcpu_freelist in NMI: ./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs -t stacktrace_build_id_nmi [ 18.984807] ================================ [ 18.984807] WARNING: inconsistent lock state [ 18.984808] 5.9.0-rc6-01771-g1466de1330e1 #2967 Not tainted [ 18.984809] -------------------------------- [ 18.984809] inconsistent {INITIAL USE} -> {IN-NMI} usage. [ 18.984810] test_progs/1990 [HC2[2]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] takes: [ 18.984810] ffffe8ffffc219c0 (&head->lock){....}-{2:2}, at: __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984813] {INITIAL USE} state was registered at: [ 18.984814] lock_acquire+0x175/0x7c0 [ 18.984814] _raw_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40 [ 18.984815] __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984815] pcpu_freelist_pop+0x31/0x40 [ 18.984816] htab_map_alloc+0xbbf/0xf40 [ 18.984816] __do_sys_bpf+0x5aa/0x3ed0 [ 18.984817] do_syscall_64+0x2d/0x40 [ 18.984818] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9 [ 18.984818] irq event stamp: 12 [...] [ 18.984822] other info that might help us debug this: [ 18.984823] Possible unsafe locking scenario: [ 18.984823] [ 18.984824] CPU0 [ 18.984824] ---- [ 18.984824] lock(&head->lock); [ 18.984826] <Interrupt> [ 18.984826] lock(&head->lock); [ 18.984827] [ 18.984828] *** DEADLOCK *** [ 18.984828] [ 18.984829] 2 locks held by test_progs/1990: [...] [ 18.984838] <NMI> [ 18.984838] dump_stack+0x9a/0xd0 [ 18.984839] lock_acquire+0x5c9/0x7c0 [ 18.984839] ? lock_release+0x6f0/0x6f0 [ 18.984840] ? __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984840] _raw_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40 [ 18.984841] ? __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984841] __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984842] pcpu_freelist_pop+0x17/0x40 [ 18.984842] ? lock_release+0x6f0/0x6f0 [ 18.984843] __bpf_get_stackid+0x534/0xaf0 [ 18.984843] bpf_prog_1fd9e30e1438d3c5_oncpu+0x73/0x350 [ 18.984844] bpf_overflow_handler+0x12f/0x3f0 This is because pcpu_freelist_head.lock is accessed in both NMI and non-NMI context. Fix this issue by using raw_spin_trylock() in NMI. Since NMI interrupts non-NMI context, when NMI context tries to lock the raw_spinlock, non-NMI context of the same CPU may already have locked a lock and is blocked from unlocking the lock. For a system with N CPUs, there could be N NMIs at the same time, and they may block N non-NMI raw_spinlocks. This is tricky for pcpu_freelist_push(), where unlike _pop(), failing _push() means leaking memory. This issue is more likely to trigger in non-SMP system. Fix this issue with an extra list, pcpu_freelist.extralist. The extralist is primarily used to take _push() when raw_spin_trylock() failed on all the per CPU lists. It should be empty most of the time. The following table summarizes the behavior of pcpu_freelist in NMI and non-NMI: non-NMI pop(): use _lock(); check per CPU lists first; if all per CPU lists are empty, check extralist; if extralist is empty, return NULL. non-NMI push(): use _lock(); only push to per CPU lists. NMI pop(): use _trylock(); check per CPU lists first; if all per CPU lists are locked or empty, check extralist; if extralist is locked or empty, return NULL. NMI push(): use _trylock(); check per CPU lists first; if all per CPU lists are locked; try push to extralist; if extralist is also locked, keep trying on per CPU lists. Reported-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20201005165838.3735218-1-songliubraving@fb.com
2020-10-05 19:58:38 +03:00
return NULL;
node = s->extralist.first;
if (node)
bpf: avoid grabbing spin_locks of all cpus when no free elems This patch use head->first in pcpu_freelist_head to check freelist having free or not. If having, grab spin_lock, or check next cpu's freelist. Before patch: hash_map performance ./map_perf_test 1 0:hash_map_perf pre-alloc 1043397 events per sec ... The average of the test results is around 1050000 events per sec. hash_map the worst: no free ./run_bench_bpf_hashmap_full_update.sh Setting up benchmark 'bpf-hashmap-ful-update'... Benchmark 'bpf-hashmap-ful-update' started. 1:hash_map_full_perf 15687 events per sec ... The average of the test results is around 16000 events per sec. ftrace trace: 0) | htab_map_update_elem() { 0) | __pcpu_freelist_pop() { 0) | _raw_spin_lock() 0) | _raw_spin_unlock() 0) | ... 0) + 25.188 us | } 0) + 28.439 us | } The test machine is 16C, trying to get spin_lock 17 times, in addition to 16c, there is an extralist. after patch: hash_map performance ./map_perf_test 1 0:hash_map_perf pre-alloc 1053298 events per sec ... The average of the test results is around 1050000 events per sec. hash_map worst: no free ./run_bench_bpf_hashmap_full_update.sh Setting up benchmark 'bpf-hashmap-ful-update'... Benchmark 'bpf-hashmap-ful-update' started. 1:hash_map_full_perf 555830 events per sec ... The average of the test results is around 550000 events per sec. ftrace trace: 0) | htab_map_update_elem() { 0) | alloc_htab_elem() { 0) 0.586 us | __pcpu_freelist_pop(); 0) 0.945 us | } 0) 8.669 us | } It can be seen that after adding this patch, the map performance is almost not degraded, and when free=0, first check head->first instead of directly acquiring spin_lock. Co-developed-by: Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@bytedance.com> Signed-off-by: Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@bytedance.com> Signed-off-by: Feng Zhou <zhoufeng.zf@bytedance.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220610023308.93798-2-zhoufeng.zf@bytedance.com Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
2022-06-10 05:33:07 +03:00
WRITE_ONCE(s->extralist.first, node->next);
bpf: Use raw_spin_trylock() for pcpu_freelist_push/pop in NMI Recent improvements in LOCKDEP highlighted a potential A-A deadlock with pcpu_freelist in NMI: ./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs -t stacktrace_build_id_nmi [ 18.984807] ================================ [ 18.984807] WARNING: inconsistent lock state [ 18.984808] 5.9.0-rc6-01771-g1466de1330e1 #2967 Not tainted [ 18.984809] -------------------------------- [ 18.984809] inconsistent {INITIAL USE} -> {IN-NMI} usage. [ 18.984810] test_progs/1990 [HC2[2]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] takes: [ 18.984810] ffffe8ffffc219c0 (&head->lock){....}-{2:2}, at: __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984813] {INITIAL USE} state was registered at: [ 18.984814] lock_acquire+0x175/0x7c0 [ 18.984814] _raw_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40 [ 18.984815] __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984815] pcpu_freelist_pop+0x31/0x40 [ 18.984816] htab_map_alloc+0xbbf/0xf40 [ 18.984816] __do_sys_bpf+0x5aa/0x3ed0 [ 18.984817] do_syscall_64+0x2d/0x40 [ 18.984818] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9 [ 18.984818] irq event stamp: 12 [...] [ 18.984822] other info that might help us debug this: [ 18.984823] Possible unsafe locking scenario: [ 18.984823] [ 18.984824] CPU0 [ 18.984824] ---- [ 18.984824] lock(&head->lock); [ 18.984826] <Interrupt> [ 18.984826] lock(&head->lock); [ 18.984827] [ 18.984828] *** DEADLOCK *** [ 18.984828] [ 18.984829] 2 locks held by test_progs/1990: [...] [ 18.984838] <NMI> [ 18.984838] dump_stack+0x9a/0xd0 [ 18.984839] lock_acquire+0x5c9/0x7c0 [ 18.984839] ? lock_release+0x6f0/0x6f0 [ 18.984840] ? __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984840] _raw_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40 [ 18.984841] ? __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984841] __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180 [ 18.984842] pcpu_freelist_pop+0x17/0x40 [ 18.984842] ? lock_release+0x6f0/0x6f0 [ 18.984843] __bpf_get_stackid+0x534/0xaf0 [ 18.984843] bpf_prog_1fd9e30e1438d3c5_oncpu+0x73/0x350 [ 18.984844] bpf_overflow_handler+0x12f/0x3f0 This is because pcpu_freelist_head.lock is accessed in both NMI and non-NMI context. Fix this issue by using raw_spin_trylock() in NMI. Since NMI interrupts non-NMI context, when NMI context tries to lock the raw_spinlock, non-NMI context of the same CPU may already have locked a lock and is blocked from unlocking the lock. For a system with N CPUs, there could be N NMIs at the same time, and they may block N non-NMI raw_spinlocks. This is tricky for pcpu_freelist_push(), where unlike _pop(), failing _push() means leaking memory. This issue is more likely to trigger in non-SMP system. Fix this issue with an extra list, pcpu_freelist.extralist. The extralist is primarily used to take _push() when raw_spin_trylock() failed on all the per CPU lists. It should be empty most of the time. The following table summarizes the behavior of pcpu_freelist in NMI and non-NMI: non-NMI pop(): use _lock(); check per CPU lists first; if all per CPU lists are empty, check extralist; if extralist is empty, return NULL. non-NMI push(): use _lock(); only push to per CPU lists. NMI pop(): use _trylock(); check per CPU lists first; if all per CPU lists are locked or empty, check extralist; if extralist is locked or empty, return NULL. NMI push(): use _trylock(); check per CPU lists first; if all per CPU lists are locked; try push to extralist; if extralist is also locked, keep trying on per CPU lists. Reported-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20201005165838.3735218-1-songliubraving@fb.com
2020-10-05 19:58:38 +03:00
raw_spin_unlock(&s->extralist.lock);
return node;
}
struct pcpu_freelist_node *__pcpu_freelist_pop(struct pcpu_freelist *s)
{
if (in_nmi())
return ___pcpu_freelist_pop_nmi(s);
return ___pcpu_freelist_pop(s);
}
bpf: fix lockdep false positive in percpu_freelist Lockdep warns about false positive: [ 12.492084] 00000000e6b28347 (&head->lock){+...}, at: pcpu_freelist_push+0x2a/0x40 [ 12.492696] but this lock was taken by another, HARDIRQ-safe lock in the past: [ 12.493275] (&rq->lock){-.-.} [ 12.493276] [ 12.493276] [ 12.493276] and interrupts could create inverse lock ordering between them. [ 12.493276] [ 12.494435] [ 12.494435] other info that might help us debug this: [ 12.494979] Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario: [ 12.494979] [ 12.495518] CPU0 CPU1 [ 12.495879] ---- ---- [ 12.496243] lock(&head->lock); [ 12.496502] local_irq_disable(); [ 12.496969] lock(&rq->lock); [ 12.497431] lock(&head->lock); [ 12.497890] <Interrupt> [ 12.498104] lock(&rq->lock); [ 12.498368] [ 12.498368] *** DEADLOCK *** [ 12.498368] [ 12.498837] 1 lock held by dd/276: [ 12.499110] #0: 00000000c58cb2ee (rcu_read_lock){....}, at: trace_call_bpf+0x5e/0x240 [ 12.499747] [ 12.499747] the shortest dependencies between 2nd lock and 1st lock: [ 12.500389] -> (&rq->lock){-.-.} { [ 12.500669] IN-HARDIRQ-W at: [ 12.500934] _raw_spin_lock+0x2f/0x40 [ 12.501373] scheduler_tick+0x4c/0xf0 [ 12.501812] update_process_times+0x40/0x50 [ 12.502294] tick_periodic+0x27/0xb0 [ 12.502723] tick_handle_periodic+0x1f/0x60 [ 12.503203] timer_interrupt+0x11/0x20 [ 12.503651] __handle_irq_event_percpu+0x43/0x2c0 [ 12.504167] handle_irq_event_percpu+0x20/0x50 [ 12.504674] handle_irq_event+0x37/0x60 [ 12.505139] handle_level_irq+0xa7/0x120 [ 12.505601] handle_irq+0xa1/0x150 [ 12.506018] do_IRQ+0x77/0x140 [ 12.506411] ret_from_intr+0x0/0x1d [ 12.506834] _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x53/0x60 [ 12.507362] __setup_irq+0x481/0x730 [ 12.507789] setup_irq+0x49/0x80 [ 12.508195] hpet_time_init+0x21/0x32 [ 12.508644] x86_late_time_init+0xb/0x16 [ 12.509106] start_kernel+0x390/0x42a [ 12.509554] secondary_startup_64+0xa4/0xb0 [ 12.510034] IN-SOFTIRQ-W at: [ 12.510305] _raw_spin_lock+0x2f/0x40 [ 12.510772] try_to_wake_up+0x1c7/0x4e0 [ 12.511220] swake_up_locked+0x20/0x40 [ 12.511657] swake_up_one+0x1a/0x30 [ 12.512070] rcu_process_callbacks+0xc5/0x650 [ 12.512553] __do_softirq+0xe6/0x47b [ 12.512978] irq_exit+0xc3/0xd0 [ 12.513372] smp_apic_timer_interrupt+0xa9/0x250 [ 12.513876] apic_timer_interrupt+0xf/0x20 [ 12.514343] default_idle+0x1c/0x170 [ 12.514765] do_idle+0x199/0x240 [ 12.515159] cpu_startup_entry+0x19/0x20 [ 12.515614] start_kernel+0x422/0x42a [ 12.516045] secondary_startup_64+0xa4/0xb0 [ 12.516521] INITIAL USE at: [ 12.516774] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x38/0x50 [ 12.517258] rq_attach_root+0x16/0xd0 [ 12.517685] sched_init+0x2f2/0x3eb [ 12.518096] start_kernel+0x1fb/0x42a [ 12.518525] secondary_startup_64+0xa4/0xb0 [ 12.518986] } [ 12.519132] ... key at: [<ffffffff82b7bc28>] __key.71384+0x0/0x8 [ 12.519649] ... acquired at: [ 12.519892] pcpu_freelist_pop+0x7b/0xd0 [ 12.520221] bpf_get_stackid+0x1d2/0x4d0 [ 12.520563] ___bpf_prog_run+0x8b4/0x11a0 [ 12.520887] [ 12.521008] -> (&head->lock){+...} { [ 12.521292] HARDIRQ-ON-W at: [ 12.521539] _raw_spin_lock+0x2f/0x40 [ 12.521950] pcpu_freelist_push+0x2a/0x40 [ 12.522396] bpf_get_stackid+0x494/0x4d0 [ 12.522828] ___bpf_prog_run+0x8b4/0x11a0 [ 12.523296] INITIAL USE at: [ 12.523537] _raw_spin_lock+0x2f/0x40 [ 12.523944] pcpu_freelist_populate+0xc0/0x120 [ 12.524417] htab_map_alloc+0x405/0x500 [ 12.524835] __do_sys_bpf+0x1a3/0x1a90 [ 12.525253] do_syscall_64+0x4a/0x180 [ 12.525659] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe [ 12.526167] } [ 12.526311] ... key at: [<ffffffff838f7668>] __key.13130+0x0/0x8 [ 12.526812] ... acquired at: [ 12.527047] __lock_acquire+0x521/0x1350 [ 12.527371] lock_acquire+0x98/0x190 [ 12.527680] _raw_spin_lock+0x2f/0x40 [ 12.527994] pcpu_freelist_push+0x2a/0x40 [ 12.528325] bpf_get_stackid+0x494/0x4d0 [ 12.528645] ___bpf_prog_run+0x8b4/0x11a0 [ 12.528970] [ 12.529092] [ 12.529092] stack backtrace: [ 12.529444] CPU: 0 PID: 276 Comm: dd Not tainted 5.0.0-rc3-00018-g2fa53f892422 #475 [ 12.530043] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.11.0-2.el7 04/01/2014 [ 12.530750] Call Trace: [ 12.530948] dump_stack+0x5f/0x8b [ 12.531248] check_usage_backwards+0x10c/0x120 [ 12.531598] ? ___bpf_prog_run+0x8b4/0x11a0 [ 12.531935] ? mark_lock+0x382/0x560 [ 12.532229] mark_lock+0x382/0x560 [ 12.532496] ? print_shortest_lock_dependencies+0x180/0x180 [ 12.532928] __lock_acquire+0x521/0x1350 [ 12.533271] ? find_get_entry+0x17f/0x2e0 [ 12.533586] ? find_get_entry+0x19c/0x2e0 [ 12.533902] ? lock_acquire+0x98/0x190 [ 12.534196] lock_acquire+0x98/0x190 [ 12.534482] ? pcpu_freelist_push+0x2a/0x40 [ 12.534810] _raw_spin_lock+0x2f/0x40 [ 12.535099] ? pcpu_freelist_push+0x2a/0x40 [ 12.535432] pcpu_freelist_push+0x2a/0x40 [ 12.535750] bpf_get_stackid+0x494/0x4d0 [ 12.536062] ___bpf_prog_run+0x8b4/0x11a0 It has been explained that is a false positive here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/7/25/756 Recap: - stackmap uses pcpu_freelist - The lock in pcpu_freelist is a percpu lock - stackmap is only used by tracing bpf_prog - A tracing bpf_prog cannot be run if another bpf_prog has already been running (ensured by the percpu bpf_prog_active counter). Eric pointed out that this lockdep splats stops other legit lockdep splats in selftests/bpf/test_progs.c. Fix this by calling local_irq_save/restore for stackmap. Another false positive had also been worked around by calling local_irq_save in commit 89ad2fa3f043 ("bpf: fix lockdep splat"). That commit added unnecessary irq_save/restore to fast path of bpf hash map. irqs are already disabled at that point, since htab is holding per bucket spin_lock with irqsave. Let's reduce overhead for htab by introducing __pcpu_freelist_push/pop function w/o irqsave and convert pcpu_freelist_push/pop to irqsave to be used elsewhere (right now only in stackmap). It stops lockdep false positive in stackmap with a bit of acceptable overhead. Fixes: 557c0c6e7df8 ("bpf: convert stackmap to pre-allocation") Reported-by: Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@linaro.org> Reported-by: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com> Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
2019-01-31 05:12:43 +03:00
struct pcpu_freelist_node *pcpu_freelist_pop(struct pcpu_freelist *s)
{
struct pcpu_freelist_node *ret;
unsigned long flags;
local_irq_save(flags);
ret = __pcpu_freelist_pop(s);
local_irq_restore(flags);
return ret;
}