Make sure to prod idle CPUs so they call klp_update_patch_state().
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]>
---
kernel/livepatch/transition.c | 5 ++++-
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
--- a/kernel/livepatch/transition.c
+++ b/kernel/livepatch/transition.c
@@ -413,8 +413,11 @@ void klp_try_complete_transition(void)
for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
task = idle_task(cpu);
if (cpu_online(cpu)) {
- if (!klp_try_switch_task(task))
+ if (!klp_try_switch_task(task)) {
complete = false;
+ /* Make idle task go through the main loop. */
+ wake_up_if_idle(cpu);
+ }
} else if (task->patch_state != klp_target_state) {
/* offline idle tasks can be switched immediately */
clear_tsk_thread_flag(task, TIF_PATCH_PENDING);
On Wed 2021-09-29 17:17:28, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Make sure to prod idle CPUs so they call klp_update_patch_state().
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Petr Mladek <[email protected]>
Tested-by: Petr Mladek <[email protected]>
Thanks a lot for updating this API for livepatching.
Best Regards,
Petr
On Wed, 29 Sep 2021, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Make sure to prod idle CPUs so they call klp_update_patch_state().
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]>
> ---
> kernel/livepatch/transition.c | 5 ++++-
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> --- a/kernel/livepatch/transition.c
> +++ b/kernel/livepatch/transition.c
> @@ -413,8 +413,11 @@ void klp_try_complete_transition(void)
> for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
> task = idle_task(cpu);
> if (cpu_online(cpu)) {
> - if (!klp_try_switch_task(task))
> + if (!klp_try_switch_task(task)) {
> complete = false;
> + /* Make idle task go through the main loop. */
> + wake_up_if_idle(cpu);
> + }
Right, it should be enough.
Acked-by: Miroslav Benes <[email protected]>
It would be nice to get Vasily's Tested-by tag on this one.
M
On Wed, Oct 06, 2021 at 11:16:21AM +0200, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Sep 2021, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > Make sure to prod idle CPUs so they call klp_update_patch_state().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > kernel/livepatch/transition.c | 5 ++++-
> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > --- a/kernel/livepatch/transition.c
> > +++ b/kernel/livepatch/transition.c
> > @@ -413,8 +413,11 @@ void klp_try_complete_transition(void)
> > for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
> > task = idle_task(cpu);
> > if (cpu_online(cpu)) {
> > - if (!klp_try_switch_task(task))
> > + if (!klp_try_switch_task(task)) {
> > complete = false;
> > + /* Make idle task go through the main loop. */
> > + wake_up_if_idle(cpu);
> > + }
>
> Right, it should be enough.
>
> Acked-by: Miroslav Benes <[email protected]>
>
> It would be nice to get Vasily's Tested-by tag on this one.
I gave patches a spin on s390 with livepatch kselftest as well as with
https://github.com/lpechacek/qa_test_klp.git
BTW, commit 43c79fbad385 ("klp_tc_17: Avoid running the test on
s390x") is no longer required, since s390 implements HAVE_KPROBES_ON_FTRACE
since v5.6, so I just reverted test disablement.
Patches 1-6 work nicely, for them
Acked-by: Vasily Gorbik <[email protected]>
Tested-by: Vasily Gorbik <[email protected]> # on s390
Thanks a lot!
Starting with patch 8 is where I start seeing this with my config:
Oct 07 10:46:00 kernel: Freeing unused kernel image (initmem) memory: 6524K
Oct 07 10:46:00 kernel: INFO: task swapper/0:1 blocked for more than 122 seconds.
Oct 07 10:46:00 kernel: Not tainted 5.15.0-rc4-69810-ga714851e1aad-dirty #74
Oct 07 10:46:00 kernel: "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message.
Oct 07 10:46:00 kernel: task:swapper/0 state:D stack:10648 pid: 1 ppid: 0 flags:0x00000000
Oct 07 10:46:00 kernel: Call Trace:
Oct 07 10:46:00 kernel: [<0000000000e164b6>] __schedule+0x36e/0x8b0
Oct 07 10:46:00 kernel: [<0000000000e16a4e>] schedule+0x56/0x128
Oct 07 10:46:00 kernel: [<0000000000e1e426>] schedule_timeout+0x106/0x160
Oct 07 10:46:00 kernel: [<0000000000e18316>] wait_for_completion+0xc6/0x118
Oct 07 10:46:00 kernel: [<000000000020a15c>] rcu_barrier.part.0+0x17c/0x2c0
Oct 07 10:46:00 kernel: [<0000000000e0fcc0>] kernel_init+0x60/0x168
Oct 07 10:46:00 kernel: [<000000000010390c>] __ret_from_fork+0x3c/0x58
Oct 07 10:46:00 kernel: [<0000000000e2094a>] ret_from_fork+0xa/0x30
Oct 07 10:46:00 kernel: 1 lock held by swapper/0/1:
Oct 07 10:46:00 kernel: #0: 0000000001469600 (rcu_state.barrier_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: rcu_barrier+0x42/0x80
Oct 07 10:46:00 kernel:
Showing all locks held in the system:
Oct 07 10:46:00 kernel: 1 lock held by swapper/0/1:
Oct 07 10:46:00 kernel: #0: 0000000001469600 (rcu_state.barrier_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: rcu_barrier+0x42/0x80
Oct 07 10:46:00 kernel: 2 locks held by kworker/u680:0/8:
Oct 07 10:46:00 kernel: #0: 000000008013cd48 ((wq_completion)events_unbound){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: process_one_work+0x222/0x738
Oct 07 10:46:00 kernel: #1: 0000038000043dc8 ((kfence_timer).work){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: process_one_work+0x222/0x738
Oct 07 10:46:00 kernel: 1 lock held by khungtaskd/413:
Oct 07 10:46:00 kernel: #0: 000000000145c980 (rcu_read_lock){....}-{1:2}, at: rcu_lock_acquire.constprop.0+0x0/0x50
Oct 07 10:46:00 kernel:
Oct 07 10:46:00 kernel: =============================================
So, will keep an eye on the rest of these patches and re-test in future, thanks!
On Thu, Oct 07, 2021 at 11:18:13AM +0200, Vasily Gorbik wrote:
> Patches 1-6 work nicely, for them
>
> Acked-by: Vasily Gorbik <[email protected]>
> Tested-by: Vasily Gorbik <[email protected]> # on s390
>
> Thanks a lot!
Thanks, will add tags.
> Starting with patch 8 is where I start seeing this with my config:
Yeah, I properly wrecked things there.. still trying to work out how to
fix it :-)
On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 6:10 PM Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Make sure to prod idle CPUs so they call klp_update_patch_state().
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]>
> ---
> kernel/livepatch/transition.c | 5 ++++-
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> --- a/kernel/livepatch/transition.c
> +++ b/kernel/livepatch/transition.c
> @@ -413,8 +413,11 @@ void klp_try_complete_transition(void)
> for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
> task = idle_task(cpu);
> if (cpu_online(cpu)) {
> - if (!klp_try_switch_task(task))
> + if (!klp_try_switch_task(task)) {
> complete = false;
> + /* Make idle task go through the main loop. */
> + wake_up_if_idle(cpu);
> + }
This caused a build regression on non-SMP kernels:
x86_64-linux-ld: kernel/livepatch/transition.o: in function
`klp_try_complete_transition':
transition.c:(.text+0x106e): undefined reference to `wake_up_if_idle'
Maybe add a IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SMP) check to one of the if() conditions?
Arnd
On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 09:37:01PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 6:10 PM Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Make sure to prod idle CPUs so they call klp_update_patch_state().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > kernel/livepatch/transition.c | 5 ++++-
> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > --- a/kernel/livepatch/transition.c
> > +++ b/kernel/livepatch/transition.c
> > @@ -413,8 +413,11 @@ void klp_try_complete_transition(void)
> > for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
> > task = idle_task(cpu);
> > if (cpu_online(cpu)) {
> > - if (!klp_try_switch_task(task))
> > + if (!klp_try_switch_task(task)) {
> > complete = false;
> > + /* Make idle task go through the main loop. */
> > + wake_up_if_idle(cpu);
> > + }
>
> This caused a build regression on non-SMP kernels:
:-(
> x86_64-linux-ld: kernel/livepatch/transition.o: in function
> `klp_try_complete_transition':
> transition.c:(.text+0x106e): undefined reference to `wake_up_if_idle'
>
> Maybe add a IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SMP) check to one of the if() conditions?
I'll just add a stub for that function I think. Let me rebase the thing
before I push more crap ontop..