Re: [PATCH 2/2] cgroup: Use separate work structs on css release path

[Tadeusz Struk]

On 5/26/22 11:15, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Michal.
>
> On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 11:56:34AM +0200, Michal Koutný wrote:
> > // ref=A: initial state
> > kill_css()
> >    css_get // ref+=F == A+F: fuse
> >    percpu_ref_kill_and_confirm
> >      __percpu_ref_switch_to_atomic
> >        percpu_ref_get
> >          // ref += 1 == A+F+1: atomic mode, self-protection
> >      percpu_ref_put
> >        // ref -= 1 == A+F: kill the base reference
> >    [via rcu]
> >    percpu_ref_switch_to_atomic_rcu
> >      percpu_ref_call_confirm_rcu
> >        css_killed_ref_fn == refcnt.confirm_switch
> >          queue_work(css->destroy_work)        (1)
> >                                                       [via css->destroy_work]
> >                                                       css_killed_work_fn == wq.func
> >                                                         offline_css() // needs fuse
> >                                                         css_put // ref -= F == A: de-fuse
> >        percpu_ref_put
> >          // ref -= 1 == A-1: remove self-protection
> >          css_release                                   // A <= 1 -> 2nd queue_work explodes!
>
> I'm not sure I'm following it but it's perfectly fine to re-use the work
> item at this point. The work item actually can be re-cycled from the very
> beginning of the work function. The only thing we need to make sure is that
> we don't css_put() prematurely to avoid it being freed while we're using it.
>
> For the sharing to be a problem, we should be queueing the release work item
> while the destroy instance is still pending, and if that is the case, it
> doesn't really matter whether we use two separate work items or not. We're
> already broken and would just be shifting the problem to explode elsewhere.
>
> The only possibility that I can think of is that somehow we're ending up
> with an extra css_put() somewhere thus triggering the release path
> prematurely. If that's the case, we'll prolly need to trace get/puts to find
> out who's causing the ref imbalance.

Hi Michal,
As far as I can see we are trying to test the same thing suggested by Tejun.
I just sent a test request to try this:
https://github.com/tstruk/linux/commit/master

Let me know if you have any more tests to run and I will hold off until
you are done.

--
Thanks,
Tadeusz