Re: [PATCH][v2] rtnetlink: add rtnl_lock debug log
From: Andy Shevchenko <hidden>
Date: 2021-05-10 13:02:18
Also in:
linux-arm-kernel, linux-mediatek, lkml
On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 03:23:41PM +0800, Rocco.Yue wrote:
On Sun, 2021-05-09 at 12:42 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:quoted
On Sat, May 8, 2021 at 12:11 PM Rocco Yue [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
We often encounter system hangs caused by certain process 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 this lightweight rtnl_lock debugging mechanism, 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 out to help locate the problem. i.e: from the following logs, we can clearly know that the pid=2206 RfxSender_4 process holds rtnl_lock for a long time, causing the system to hang. And we can also speculate that the delay operation may be performed in devinet_ioctl(), resulting in rtnl_lock was not released in time. <6>[ 40.191481][ C6] rtnetlink: -- rtnl_print_btrace start --You don't seem to get it. It's a quite long trace for the commit message. Do you need all those lines below? Why?The contents shown in all the lines below are the original printed after adding this patch, I pasted these lines into commit message to illustrate this patch as a case. It now appears that some of following are indeed unnecessary, I am going to condense a lot of following contents as follows. Could you please help to take a look at it again? many thanks :-) [ 40.191481] rtnetlink: -- rtnl_print_btrace start -- [ 40.191494] RfxSender_4[2206][R] hold rtnl_lock more than 2 sec, start time: 38181400013 [ 40.191571] Call trace: [ 40.191586] rtnl_print_btrace+0xf0/0x124 [ 40.191656] __delay+0xc0/0x180 [ 40.191663] devinet_ioctl+0x21c/0x75c [ 40.191668] inet_ioctl+0xb8/0x1f8 [ 40.191675] sock_do_ioctl+0x70/0x2ac [ 40.191682] sock_ioctl+0x5dc/0xa74 [ 40.191715] rtnetlink: -- rtnl_print_btrace end -- [ 42.181879] rtnetlink: rtnl_lock is held by [2206] from [38181400013] to [42181875177]
Much better, thanks! (You still need a real review on the contents of the change)
quoted
quoted
<6>[ 40.191494][ C6] rtnetlink: RfxSender_4[2206][R] hold rtnl_lock more than 2 sec, start time: 38181400013 <4>[ 40.191510][ C6] devinet_ioctl+0x1fc/0x75c <4>[ 40.191517][ C6] inet_ioctl+0xb8/0x1f8 <4>[ 40.191527][ C6] sock_do_ioctl+0x70/0x2ac <4>[ 40.191533][ C6] sock_ioctl+0x5dc/0xa74 <4>[ 40.191541][ C6] __arm64_sys_ioctl+0x178/0x1fc <4>[ 40.191548][ C6] el0_svc_common+0xc0/0x24c <4>[ 40.191555][ C6] el0_svc+0x28/0x88 <4>[ 40.191560][ C6] el0_sync_handler+0x8c/0xf0 <4>[ 40.191566][ C6] el0_sync+0x198/0x1c0 <6>[ 40.191571][ C6] Call trace: <6>[ 40.191586][ C6] rtnl_print_btrace+0xf0/0x124 <6>[ 40.191595][ C6] call_timer_fn+0x5c/0x3b4 <6>[ 40.191602][ C6] expire_timers+0xe0/0x49c <6>[ 40.191609][ C6] __run_timers+0x34c/0x48c <6>[ 40.191616][ C6] run_timer_softirq+0x28/0x58 <6>[ 40.191621][ C6] efi_header_end+0x168/0x690 <6>[ 40.191628][ C6] __irq_exit_rcu+0x108/0x124 <6>[ 40.191635][ C6] __handle_domain_irq+0x130/0x1b4 <6>[ 40.191643][ C6] gic_handle_irq.29882+0x6c/0x2d8 <6>[ 40.191648][ C6] el1_irq+0xdc/0x1c0 <6>[ 40.191656][ C6] __delay+0xc0/0x180 <6>[ 40.191663][ C6] devinet_ioctl+0x21c/0x75c <6>[ 40.191668][ C6] inet_ioctl+0xb8/0x1f8 <6>[ 40.191675][ C6] sock_do_ioctl+0x70/0x2ac <6>[ 40.191682][ C6] sock_ioctl+0x5dc/0xa74 <6>[ 40.191688][ C6] __arm64_sys_ioctl+0x178/0x1fc <6>[ 40.191694][ C6] el0_svc_common+0xc0/0x24c <6>[ 40.191699][ C6] el0_svc+0x28/0x88 <6>[ 40.191705][ C6] el0_sync_handler+0x8c/0xf0 <6>[ 40.191710][ C6] el0_sync+0x198/0x1c0 <6>[ 40.191715][ C6] rtnetlink: -- rtnl_print_btrace end -- <6>[ 42.181879][ T2206] rtnetlink: rtnl_lock is held by [2206] from [38181400013] to [42181875177]
-- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko