6.12-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) urezki@gmail.com
commit dfd3df31c9db752234d7d2e09bef2aeabb643ce4 upstream.
Currently kvfree_rcu() APIs use a system workqueue which is "system_unbound_wq" to driver RCU machinery to reclaim a memory.
Recently, it has been noted that the following kernel warning can be observed:
<snip> workqueue: WQ_MEM_RECLAIM nvme-wq:nvme_scan_work is flushing !WQ_MEM_RECLAIM events_unbound:kfree_rcu_work WARNING: CPU: 21 PID: 330 at kernel/workqueue.c:3719 check_flush_dependency+0x112/0x120 Modules linked in: intel_uncore_frequency(E) intel_uncore_frequency_common(E) skx_edac(E) ... CPU: 21 UID: 0 PID: 330 Comm: kworker/u144:6 Tainted: G E 6.13.2-0_g925d379822da #1 Hardware name: Wiwynn Twin Lakes MP/Twin Lakes Passive MP, BIOS YMM20 02/01/2023 Workqueue: nvme-wq nvme_scan_work RIP: 0010:check_flush_dependency+0x112/0x120 Code: 05 9a 40 14 02 01 48 81 c6 c0 00 00 00 48 8b 50 18 48 81 c7 c0 00 00 00 48 89 f9 48 ... RSP: 0018:ffffc90000df7bd8 EFLAGS: 00010082 RAX: 000000000000006a RBX: ffffffff81622390 RCX: 0000000000000027 RDX: 00000000fffeffff RSI: 000000000057ffa8 RDI: ffff88907f960c88 RBP: 0000000000000000 R08: ffffffff83068e50 R09: 000000000002fffd R10: 0000000000000004 R11: 0000000000000000 R12: ffff8881001a4400 R13: 0000000000000000 R14: ffff88907f420fb8 R15: 0000000000000000 FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff88907f940000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 CR2: 00007f60c3001000 CR3: 000000107d010005 CR4: 00000000007726f0 PKRU: 55555554 Call Trace: <TASK> ? __warn+0xa4/0x140 ? check_flush_dependency+0x112/0x120 ? report_bug+0xe1/0x140 ? check_flush_dependency+0x112/0x120 ? handle_bug+0x5e/0x90 ? exc_invalid_op+0x16/0x40 ? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x16/0x20 ? timer_recalc_next_expiry+0x190/0x190 ? check_flush_dependency+0x112/0x120 ? check_flush_dependency+0x112/0x120 __flush_work.llvm.1643880146586177030+0x174/0x2c0 flush_rcu_work+0x28/0x30 kvfree_rcu_barrier+0x12f/0x160 kmem_cache_destroy+0x18/0x120 bioset_exit+0x10c/0x150 disk_release.llvm.6740012984264378178+0x61/0xd0 device_release+0x4f/0x90 kobject_put+0x95/0x180 nvme_put_ns+0x23/0xc0 nvme_remove_invalid_namespaces+0xb3/0xd0 nvme_scan_work+0x342/0x490 process_scheduled_works+0x1a2/0x370 worker_thread+0x2ff/0x390 ? pwq_release_workfn+0x1e0/0x1e0 kthread+0xb1/0xe0 ? __kthread_parkme+0x70/0x70 ret_from_fork+0x30/0x40 ? __kthread_parkme+0x70/0x70 ret_from_fork_asm+0x11/0x20 </TASK> ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- <snip>
To address this switch to use of independent WQ_MEM_RECLAIM workqueue, so the rules are not violated from workqueue framework point of view.
Apart of that, since kvfree_rcu() does reclaim memory it is worth to go with WQ_MEM_RECLAIM type of wq because it is designed for this purpose.
Fixes: 6c6c47b063b5 ("mm, slab: call kvfree_rcu_barrier() from kmem_cache_destroy()"), Reported-by: Keith Busch kbusch@kernel.org Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/all/Z7iqJtCjHKfo8Kho@kbusch-mbp/ Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) urezki@gmail.com Reviewed-by: Joel Fernandes joelagnelf@nvidia.com Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka vbabka@suse.cz Signed-off-by: Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) urezki@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman gregkh@linuxfoundation.org --- kernel/rcu/tree.c | 14 ++++++++++---- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c @@ -3191,6 +3191,8 @@ void call_rcu(struct rcu_head *head, rcu } EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(call_rcu);
+static struct workqueue_struct *rcu_reclaim_wq; + /* Maximum number of jiffies to wait before draining a batch. */ #define KFREE_DRAIN_JIFFIES (5 * HZ) #define KFREE_N_BATCHES 2 @@ -3519,10 +3521,10 @@ __schedule_delayed_monitor_work(struct k if (delayed_work_pending(&krcp->monitor_work)) { delay_left = krcp->monitor_work.timer.expires - jiffies; if (delay < delay_left) - mod_delayed_work(system_unbound_wq, &krcp->monitor_work, delay); + mod_delayed_work(rcu_reclaim_wq, &krcp->monitor_work, delay); return; } - queue_delayed_work(system_unbound_wq, &krcp->monitor_work, delay); + queue_delayed_work(rcu_reclaim_wq, &krcp->monitor_work, delay); }
static void @@ -3620,7 +3622,7 @@ kvfree_rcu_queue_batch(struct kfree_rcu_ // "free channels", the batch can handle. Break // the loop since it is done with this CPU thus // queuing an RCU work is _always_ success here. - queued = queue_rcu_work(system_unbound_wq, &krwp->rcu_work); + queued = queue_rcu_work(rcu_reclaim_wq, &krwp->rcu_work); WARN_ON_ONCE(!queued); break; } @@ -3708,7 +3710,7 @@ run_page_cache_worker(struct kfree_rcu_c if (rcu_scheduler_active == RCU_SCHEDULER_RUNNING && !atomic_xchg(&krcp->work_in_progress, 1)) { if (atomic_read(&krcp->backoff_page_cache_fill)) { - queue_delayed_work(system_unbound_wq, + queue_delayed_work(rcu_reclaim_wq, &krcp->page_cache_work, msecs_to_jiffies(rcu_delay_page_cache_fill_msec)); } else { @@ -5662,6 +5664,10 @@ static void __init kfree_rcu_batch_init( int i, j; struct shrinker *kfree_rcu_shrinker;
+ rcu_reclaim_wq = alloc_workqueue("kvfree_rcu_reclaim", + WQ_UNBOUND | WQ_MEM_RECLAIM, 0); + WARN_ON(!rcu_reclaim_wq); + /* Clamp it to [0:100] seconds interval. */ if (rcu_delay_page_cache_fill_msec < 0 || rcu_delay_page_cache_fill_msec > 100 * MSEC_PER_SEC) {