FAILED: Patch "cgroup/bpf: use a dedicated workqueue for cgroup bpf destruction" failed to apply to v5.15-stable tree

The patch below does not apply to the v5.15-stable tree.
If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit id to <[email protected]>.

Thanks,
Sasha

------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------

From 117932eea99b729ee5d12783601a4f7f5fd58a23 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Chen Ridong <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2024 11:24:56 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] cgroup/bpf: use a dedicated workqueue for cgroup bpf
destruction

A hung_task problem shown below was found:

INFO: task kworker/0:0:8 blocked for more than 327 seconds.
"echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message.
Workqueue: events cgroup_bpf_release
Call Trace:
 <TASK>
 __schedule+0x5a2/0x2050
 ? find_held_lock+0x33/0x100
 ? wq_worker_sleeping+0x9e/0xe0
 schedule+0x9f/0x180
 schedule_preempt_disabled+0x25/0x50
 __mutex_lock+0x512/0x740
 ? cgroup_bpf_release+0x1e/0x4d0
 ? cgroup_bpf_release+0xcf/0x4d0
 ? process_scheduled_works+0x161/0x8a0
 ? cgroup_bpf_release+0x1e/0x4d0
 ? mutex_lock_nested+0x2b/0x40
 ? __pfx_delay_tsc+0x10/0x10
 mutex_lock_nested+0x2b/0x40
 cgroup_bpf_release+0xcf/0x4d0
 ? process_scheduled_works+0x161/0x8a0
 ? trace_event_raw_event_workqueue_execute_start+0x64/0xd0
 ? process_scheduled_works+0x161/0x8a0
 process_scheduled_works+0x23a/0x8a0
 worker_thread+0x231/0x5b0
 ? __pfx_worker_thread+0x10/0x10
 kthread+0x14d/0x1c0
 ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10
 ret_from_fork+0x59/0x70
 ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10
 ret_from_fork_asm+0x1b/0x30
 </TASK>

This issue can be reproduced by the following pressuse test:
1. A large number of cpuset cgroups are deleted.
2. Set cpu on and off repeatly.
3. Set watchdog_thresh repeatly.
The scripts can be obtained at LINK mentioned above the signature.

The reason for this issue is cgroup_mutex and cpu_hotplug_lock are acquired in different tasks, which may lead to deadlock.
It can lead to a deadlock through the following steps:
1. A large number of cpusets are deleted asynchronously, which puts a large number of cgroup_bpf_release works into system_wq. The max_active of system_wq is WQ_DFL_ACTIVE(256). Consequently, all active works are cgroup_bpf_release works, and many cgroup_bpf_release works will be put into inactive queue. As illustrated in the diagram, there are 256 (in the acvtive queue) + n (in the inactive queue) works.
2. Setting watchdog_thresh will hold cpu_hotplug_lock.read and put smp_call_on_cpu work into system_wq. However step 1 has already filled system_wq, 'sscs.work' is put into inactive queue. 'sscs.work' has to wait until the works that were put into the inacvtive queue earlier have executed (n cgroup_bpf_release), so it will be blocked for a while.
3. Cpu offline requires cpu_hotplug_lock.write, which is blocked by step 2.
4. Cpusets that were deleted at step 1 put cgroup_release works into cgroup_destroy_wq. They are competing to get cgroup_mutex all the time. When cgroup_metux is acqured by work at css_killed_work_fn, it will call cpuset_css_offline, which needs to acqure cpu_hotplug_lock.read. However, cpuset_css_offline will be blocked for step 3.
5. At this moment, there are 256 works in active queue that are cgroup_bpf_release, they are attempting to acquire cgroup_mutex, and as a result, all of them are blocked. Consequently, sscs.work can not be executed. Ultimately, this situation leads to four processes being blocked, forming a deadlock.

system_wq(step1) WatchDog(step2) cpu offline(step3) cgroup_destroy_wq(step4)
...
2000+ cgroups deleted asyn
256 actives + n inactives
__lockup_detector_reconfigure P(cpu_hotplug_lock.read) put sscs.work into system_wq
256 + n + 1(sscs.work)
sscs.work wait to be executed

				warting sscs.work finish
								percpu_down_write
								P(cpu_hotplug_lock.write)
								...blocking...
											css_killed_work_fn
											P(cgroup_mutex)
											cpuset_css_offline
											P(cpu_hotplug_lock.read)
											...blocking...

256 cgroup_bpf_release
mutex_lock(&cgroup_mutex);
..blocking...

To fix the problem, place cgroup_bpf_release works on a dedicated workqueue which can break the loop and solve the problem. System wqs are for misc things which shouldn't create a large number of concurrent work items. If something is going to generate >WQ_DFL_ACTIVE(256) concurrent work items, it should use its own dedicated workqueue.

---
 kernel/bpf/cgroup.c | 19 ++++++++++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

index e7113d700b878..025d7e2214aeb 100644
@@ -24,6 +24,23 @@
 DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_ARRAY_FALSE(cgroup_bpf_enabled_key, MAX_CGROUP_BPF_ATTACH_TYPE);
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(cgroup_bpf_enabled_key);
 
+/*
+ * cgroup bpf destruction makes heavy use of work items and there can be a lot
+ * of concurrent destructions.  Use a separate workqueue so that cgroup bpf
+ * destruction work items don't end up filling up max_active of system_wq
+ * which may lead to deadlock.
+ */
+static struct workqueue_struct *cgroup_bpf_destroy_wq;
+
+static int __init cgroup_bpf_wq_init(void)
+{
+	cgroup_bpf_destroy_wq = alloc_workqueue("cgroup_bpf_destroy", 0, 1);
+	if (!cgroup_bpf_destroy_wq)
+		panic("Failed to alloc workqueue for cgroup bpf destroy.\n");
+	return 0;
+}
+core_initcall(cgroup_bpf_wq_init);
+
 /* __always_inline is necessary to prevent indirect call through run_prog
  * function pointer.
  */

@@ -334,7 +351,7 @@ static void cgroup_bpf_release_fn(struct percpu_ref *ref)
 	struct cgroup *cgrp = container_of(ref, struct cgroup, bpf.refcnt);
 
 	INIT_WORK(&cgrp->bpf.release_work, cgroup_bpf_release);
-	queue_work(system_wq, &cgrp->bpf.release_work);
+	queue_work(cgroup_bpf_destroy_wq, &cgrp->bpf.release_work);
 }
 
 /* Get underlying bpf_prog of bpf_prog_list entry, regardless if it's through

2.43.0