quoted

We often encounter system hangs caused by certain processes
holding rtnl_lock for a long time. Even if there is a lock
detection mechanism in Linux, it is a bit troublesome and
affects the system performance. We hope to add a lightweight
debugging mechanism for detecting rtnl_lock.

Up to now, we have discovered and solved some potential bugs
through such debug information of this lightweight rtnl_lock,
which is helpful for us.

When you say Y for RTNL_LOCK_DEBUG, then the kernel will detect
if any function hold rtnl_lock too long and some key information
will be printed to help identify the issue point.

i.e: from the following logs, we can clear know that the pid=5546

clearly

quoted

RfxSender_4 process hold rtnl_lock for a long time, causing the

holds

quoted

system hang. And we can also speculate that the delay operation

to hang

Thanks for your review, Andy.

I Will fix them.

quoted

may be performed in devinet_ioctl(), resulting in rtnl_lock was
not released in time.

<6>[  141.151364] ----------- rtnl_print_btrace start -----------

Can you, please, shrink this to the point?

Will shrink these points.

quoted

<6>[  141.152079] RfxSender_4[5546][R] hold rtnl_lock more than 2 sec,
start time: 139129481562
<4>[  141.153114]  rtnl_lock+0x88/0xfc
<4>[  141.153523]  devinet_ioctl+0x190/0x1268
<4>[  141.154007]  inet_ioctl+0x108/0x1f4
<4>[  141.154449]  sock_do_ioctl+0x88/0x200
<4>[  141.154911]  sock_ioctl+0x4b0/0x884
<4>[  141.155367]  do_vfs_ioctl+0x6b0/0xcc4
<4>[  141.155830]  __arm64_sys_ioctl+0xc0/0xec
<4>[  141.156326]  el0_svc_common+0x130/0x2c0
<4>[  141.156810]  el0_svc_handler+0xd0/0xe0
<4>[  141.157283]  el0_svc+0x8/0xc
<4>[  141.157646] Call trace:
<4>[  141.157956]  dump_backtrace+0x0/0x240
<4>[  141.158418]  show_stack+0x18/0x24
<4>[  141.158836]  rtnl_print_btrace+0x138/0x1cc
<4>[  141.159362]  call_timer_fn+0x120/0x47c
<4>[  141.159834]  expire_timers+0x28c/0x420
<4>[  141.160306]  __run_timers+0x3d0/0x494
<4>[  141.160768]  run_timer_softirq+0x24/0x48
<4>[  141.161262]  __do_softirq+0x26c/0x968
<4>[  141.161725]  irq_exit+0x1f8/0x2b4
<4>[  141.162145]  __handle_domain_irq+0xdc/0x15c
<4>[  141.162672]  gic_handle_irq+0xe4/0x188
<4>[  141.163144]  el1_irq+0x104/0x200
<4>[  141.163559]  __const_udelay+0x118/0x1b0
<4>[  141.164044]  devinet_ioctl+0x1a0/0x1268
<4>[  141.164527]  inet_ioctl+0x108/0x1f4
<4>[  141.164968]  sock_do_ioctl+0x88/0x200
<4>[  141.165428]  sock_ioctl+0x4b0/0x884
<4>[  141.165868]  do_vfs_ioctl+0x6b0/0xcc4
<4>[  141.166330]  __arm64_sys_ioctl+0xc0/0xec
<4>[  141.166825]  el0_svc_common+0x130/0x2c0
<4>[  141.167308]  el0_svc_handler+0xd0/0xe0
<4>[  141.167786]  el0_svc+0x8/0xc
<6>[  141.168153] ------------ rtnl_print_btrace end -----------

<6>[  147.321389] rtnl_lock is held by [5546] from
[139129481562] to [147321378812]

...

quoted

+static struct rtnl_debug_btrace_t rtnl_instance = {
+       .task           = NULL,
+       .pid            = 0,
+       .start_time     = 0,
+       .end_time       = 0,
+       .nr_entries     = 0,

static assumes all 0:s, what's the point?

will fix it in the patch v2.

quoted

+};

...

quoted

+static void rtnl_print_btrace(struct timer_list *unused)
+{
+       pr_info("----------- %s start -----------\n", __func__);
+       pr_info("%s[%d][%c] hold rtnl_lock more than 2 sec, start time: %llu\n",
+               rtnl_instance.task->comm,
+               rtnl_instance.pid,
+               task_state_to_char(rtnl_instance.task),
+               rtnl_instance.start_time);
+       stack_trace_print(rtnl_instance.addrs, rtnl_instance.nr_entries, 0);

quoted

+       show_stack(rtnl_instance.task, NULL, KERN_DEBUG);

Unaligned debug level.

KERN_INFO is expected, I will fix it in patch v2.

quoted

+       pr_info("------------ %s end -----------\n", __func__);

Looking into tons of these, perhaps you need to define pr_fmt(). I
haven't checked if it's already defined, though.

In the files related rtnetlink, pr_fmt() is not defined. I am not sure
if I can define one since there are other error logs in the rtnetlink.c.

In addition, there is "rtnl_lock" field in the log, I usually use it to
retrieve whether rtnl_lock is held for a long time.

If adding pr_fmt() is better, it is ok to me :-)

quoted

+}

...

quoted

+       if (rtnl_instance.end_time - rtnl_instance.start_time > 2000000000ULL) {

Perhaps you should use one of the defined constants from time64.h ?

Will have a separate patch for this.

quoted

+               pr_info("rtnl_lock is held by [%d] from [%llu] to [%llu]\n",
+                       rtnl_instance.pid,
+                       rtnl_instance.start_time,
+                       rtnl_instance.end_time);
+       }

Best Regard
Rocco

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel