From: Daniel Harding <[email protected]>
To: Pavel Begunkov <[email protected]>, Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected]
Subject: Re: [REGRESSION] lxc-stop hang on 5.17.x kernels
Date: Wed, 4 May 2022 09:54:10 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
On 5/3/22 17:14, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> On 5/3/22 08:37, Daniel Harding wrote:
>> [Resend with a smaller trace]
>>
>> On 5/3/22 02:14, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>>> On 5/2/22 19:49, Daniel Harding wrote:
>>>> On 5/2/22 20:40, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>>>>> On 5/2/22 18:00, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/2/22 7:59 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/2/22 7:36 AM, Daniel Harding wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/2/22 16:26, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/2/22 7:17 AM, Daniel Harding wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I use lxc-4.0.12 on Gentoo, built with io-uring support
>>>>>>>>>> (--enable-liburing), targeting liburing-2.1. My kernel
>>>>>>>>>> config is a
>>>>>>>>>> very lightly modified version of Fedora's generic kernel
>>>>>>>>>> config. After
>>>>>>>>>> moving from the 5.16.x series to the 5.17.x kernel series, I
>>>>>>>>>> started
>>>>>>>>>> noticed frequent hangs in lxc-stop. It doesn't happen 100%
>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>> time, but definitely more than 50% of the time. Bisecting
>>>>>>>>>> narrowed
>>>>>>>>>> down the issue to commit
>>>>>>>>>> aa43477b040251f451db0d844073ac00a8ab66ee:
>>>>>>>>>> io_uring: poll rework. Testing indicates the problem is still
>>>>>>>>>> present
>>>>>>>>>> in 5.18-rc5. Unfortunately I do not have the expertise with the
>>>>>>>>>> codebases of either lxc or io-uring to try to debug the problem
>>>>>>>>>> further on my own, but I can easily apply patches to any of the
>>>>>>>>>> involved components (lxc, liburing, kernel) and rebuild for
>>>>>>>>>> testing or
>>>>>>>>>> validation. I am also happy to provide any further
>>>>>>>>>> information that
>>>>>>>>>> would be helpful with reproducing or debugging the problem.
>>>>>>>>> Do you have a recipe to reproduce the hang? That would make it
>>>>>>>>> significantly easier to figure out.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I can reproduce it with just the following:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> sudo lxc-create --n lxc-test --template download --bdev
>>>>>>>> dir --dir /var/lib/lxc/lxc-test/rootfs -- -d ubuntu -r bionic
>>>>>>>> -a amd64
>>>>>>>> sudo lxc-start -n lxc-test
>>>>>>>> sudo lxc-stop -n lxc-test
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The lxc-stop command never exits and the container continues
>>>>>>>> running.
>>>>>>>> If that isn't sufficient to reproduce, please let me know.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks, that's useful! I'm at a conference this week and hence have
>>>>>>> limited amount of time to debug, hopefully Pavel has time to
>>>>>>> take a look
>>>>>>> at this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Didn't manage to reproduce. Can you try, on both the good and bad
>>>>>> kernel, to do:
>>>>>
>>>>> Same here, it doesn't reproduce for me
>>>> OK, sorry it wasn't something simple.
>>>>> # echo 1 > /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/events/io_uring/enable
>>>>>>
>>>>>> run lxc-stop
>>>>>>
>>>>>> # cp /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/trace ~/iou-trace
>>>>>>
>>>>>> so we can see what's going on? Looking at the source, lxc is just
>>>>>> using
>>>>>> plain POLL_ADD, so I'm guessing it's not getting a notification
>>>>>> when it
>>>>>> expects to, or it's POLL_REMOVE not doing its job. If we have a
>>>>>> trace
>>>>>> from both a working and broken kernel, that might shed some light
>>>>>> on it.
>>>> It's late in my timezone, but I'll try to work on getting those
>>>> traces tomorrow.
>>>
>>> I think I got it, I've attached a trace.
>>>
>>> What's interesting is that it issues a multi shot poll but I don't
>>> see any kind of cancellation, neither cancel requests nor task/ring
>>> exit. Perhaps have to go look at lxc to see how it's supposed
>>> to work
>>
>> Yes, that looks exactly like my bad trace. I've attached good trace
>> (captured with linux-5.16.19) and a bad trace (captured with
>> linux-5.17.5). These are the differences I noticed with just a
>> visual scan:
>>
>> * Both traces have three io_uring_submit_sqe calls at the very
>> beginning, but in the good trace, there are further
>> io_uring_submit_sqe calls throughout the trace, while in the bad
>> trace, there are none.
>> * The good trace uses a mask of c3 for io_uring_task_add much more
>> often than the bad trace: the bad trace uses a mask of c3 only for
>> the very last call to io_uring_task_add, but a mask of 41 for the
>> other calls.
>> * In the good trace, many of the io_uring_complete calls have a
>> result of 195, while in the bad trace, they all have a result of 1.
>>
>> I don't know whether any of those things are significant or not, but
>> that's what jumped out at me.
>>
>> I have also attached a copy of the script I used to generate the
>> traces. If there is anything further I can to do help debug, please
>> let me know.
>
> Good observations! thanks for traces.
>
> It sounds like multi-shot poll requests were getting downgraded
> to one-shot, which is a valid behaviour and was so because we
> didn't fully support some cases. If that's the reason, than
> the userspace/lxc is misusing the ABI. At least, that's the
> working hypothesis for now, need to check lxc.
So, I looked at the lxc source code, and it appears to at least try to
handle the case of multi-shot being downgraded to one-shot. I don't
know enough to know if the code is actually correct however:
https://github.com/lxc/lxc/blob/7e37cc96bb94175a8e351025d26cc35dc2d10543/src/lxc/mainloop.c#L165-L189
https://github.com/lxc/lxc/blob/7e37cc96bb94175a8e351025d26cc35dc2d10543/src/lxc/mainloop.c#L254
https://github.com/lxc/lxc/blob/7e37cc96bb94175a8e351025d26cc35dc2d10543/src/lxc/mainloop.c#L288-L290
--
Regards,
Daniel Harding
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-05-04 6:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-05-02 13:17 [REGRESSION] lxc-stop hang on 5.17.x kernels Daniel Harding
2022-05-02 13:26 ` Jens Axboe
2022-05-02 13:36 ` Daniel Harding
2022-05-02 13:59 ` Jens Axboe
2022-05-02 17:00 ` Jens Axboe
2022-05-02 17:40 ` Pavel Begunkov
2022-05-02 18:49 ` Daniel Harding
2022-05-02 23:14 ` Pavel Begunkov
2022-05-03 7:37 ` Daniel Harding
2022-05-03 14:14 ` Pavel Begunkov
2022-05-04 6:54 ` Daniel Harding [this message]
2022-05-15 8:20 ` Thorsten Leemhuis
2022-05-15 18:34 ` Daniel Harding
2022-05-16 12:12 ` Pavel Begunkov
2022-05-16 13:25 ` Pavel Begunkov
2022-05-16 13:57 ` Daniel Harding
2022-05-16 15:13 ` Daniel Harding
2022-05-16 18:13 ` Pavel Begunkov
2022-05-17 8:19 ` Christian Brauner
2022-05-17 10:31 ` Pavel Begunkov
2022-05-16 18:17 ` Thorsten Leemhuis
2022-05-16 18:22 ` Jens Axboe
2022-05-16 18:34 ` Thorsten Leemhuis
2022-05-16 18:39 ` Jens Axboe
2022-05-16 19:07 ` Thorsten Leemhuis
2022-05-16 19:14 ` Jens Axboe
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox