>On Fri 2021-03-19 16:00:36, Wang Qing wrote:
>> When touch_softlockup_watchdog() is called, only wq_watchdog_touched_cpu
>> updated, while the unbound worker_pool running on its core uses
>> wq_watchdog_touched to determine whether locked up. This may be mischecked.
>
>By other words, unbound workqueues are not aware of the more common
>touch_softlockup_watchdog() because it updates only
>wq_watchdog_touched_cpu for the affected CPU. As a result,
>the workqueue watchdog might report lockup in unbound workqueue
>even though it is blocked by a known slow code.
Yes, this is the problem I'm talking about.
>
>> My suggestion is to update both when touch_softlockup_watchdog() is called,
>> use wq_watchdog_touched_cpu to check bound, and use wq_watchdog_touched
>> to check unbound worker_pool.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Wang Qing <wangq...@vivo.com>
>> ---
>> kernel/watchdog.c | 5 +++--
>> kernel/workqueue.c | 17 ++++++-----------
>> 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/watchdog.c b/kernel/watchdog.c
>> index 7110906..107bc38
>> --- a/kernel/watchdog.c
>> +++ b/kernel/watchdog.c
>> @@ -278,9 +278,10 @@ void touch_all_softlockup_watchdogs(void)
>> * update as well, the only side effect might be a cycle delay for
>> * the softlockup check.
>> */
>> - for_each_cpu(cpu, &watchdog_allowed_mask)
>> + for_each_cpu(cpu, &watchdog_allowed_mask) {
>> per_cpu(watchdog_touch_ts, cpu) = SOFTLOCKUP_RESET;
>> - wq_watchdog_touch(-1);
>> + wq_watchdog_touch(cpu);
>
>Note that wq_watchdog_touch(cpu) newly always updates
>wq_watchdog_touched. This cycle will set the same jiffies
>value cpu-times to the same variable.
>
Although there is a bit of redundancy here, but the most concise way of
implementation, and it is certain that it will not affect performance.
>> + }
>> }
>>
>> void touch_softlockup_watchdog_sync(void)
>> diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
>> index 0d150da..be08295
>> --- a/kernel/workqueue.c
>> +++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
>> @@ -5787,22 +5787,17 @@ static void wq_watchdog_timer_fn(struct timer_list
>> *unused)
>> continue;
>>
>> /* get the latest of pool and touched timestamps */
>> + if (pool->cpu >= 0)
>> + touched = READ_ONCE(per_cpu(wq_watchdog_touched_cpu,
>> pool->cpu));
>> + else
>> + touched = READ_ONCE(wq_watchdog_touched);
>> pool_ts = READ_ONCE(pool->watchdog_ts);
>> - touched = READ_ONCE(wq_watchdog_touched);
>>
>> if (time_after(pool_ts, touched))
>> ts = pool_ts;
>> else
>> ts = touched;
>>
>> - if (pool->cpu >= 0) {
>> - unsigned long cpu_touched =
>> - READ_ONCE(per_cpu(wq_watchdog_touched_cpu,
>> - pool->cpu));
>> - if (time_after(cpu_touched, ts))
>> - ts = cpu_touched;
>> - }
>> -
>> /* did we stall? */
>> if (time_after(jiffies, ts + thresh)) {
>> lockup_detected = true;
>> @@ -5826,8 +5821,8 @@ notrace void wq_watchdog_touch(int cpu)
>> {
>> if (cpu >= 0)
>> per_cpu(wq_watchdog_touched_cpu, cpu) = jiffies;
>> - else
>> - wq_watchdog_touched = jiffies;
>> +
>> + wq_watchdog_touched = jiffies;
>> }
>>
>> static void wq_watchdog_set_thresh(unsigned long thresh)
>
>This last hunk is enough to fix the problem. wq_watchdog_touched will
>get updated also from cpu-specific touch_softlockup_watchdog().
Not enough in fact, because wq_watchdog_touched was updated in
wq_watchdog_touch(),
so wq_watchdog_touched can no longer be used to judge the bound pool, we must
update
every wq_watchdog_touched_cpu in touch_all_softlockup_watchdogs() for bound
judgment.
Thanks,
Qing Wang
>
>The original patch simplified the logic of wq_watchdog_timer_fn().
>But it added un-necessary assignments into
>touch_all_softlockup_watchdogs(void).
>
>I do not have strong opinion what solution is better. I slightly
>prefer to keep only this last hunk.
>
>Best Regards,
>Petr
