All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: jan.glauber@caviumnetworks.com (Jan Glauber)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: RCU stall with high number of KVM vcpus
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 08:52:49 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171114075249.GB16731@hc> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7dda7be2-f392-8056-d4d3-372bb867729a@arm.com>

On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 06:11:19PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 13/11/17 17:35, Jan Glauber wrote:

[...]

> >>> numbers don't look good, see waittime-max:
> >>>
> >>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>                               class name    con-bounces    contentions   waittime-min   waittime-max waittime-total   waittime-avg    acq-bounces   acquisitions   holdtime-min   holdtime-max holdtime-total   holdtime-avg
> >>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>>                 &(&kvm->mmu_lock)->rlock:      99346764       99406604           0.14  1321260806.59 710654434972.0        7148.97      154228320      225122857           0.13   917688890.60  3705916481.39          16.46
> >>>                 ------------------------
> >>>                 &(&kvm->mmu_lock)->rlock       99365598          [<ffff0000080b43b8>] kvm_handle_guest_abort+0x4c0/0x950
> >>>                 &(&kvm->mmu_lock)->rlock          25164          [<ffff0000080a4e30>] kvm_mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start+0x70/0xe8
> >>>                 &(&kvm->mmu_lock)->rlock          14934          [<ffff0000080a7eec>] kvm_mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end+0x24/0x68
> >>>                 &(&kvm->mmu_lock)->rlock            908          [<ffff00000810a1f0>] __cond_resched_lock+0x68/0xb8
> >>>                 ------------------------
> >>>                 &(&kvm->mmu_lock)->rlock              3          [<ffff0000080b34c8>] stage2_flush_vm+0x60/0xd8
> >>>                 &(&kvm->mmu_lock)->rlock       99186296          [<ffff0000080b43b8>] kvm_handle_guest_abort+0x4c0/0x950
> >>>                 &(&kvm->mmu_lock)->rlock         179238          [<ffff0000080a4e30>] kvm_mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start+0x70/0xe8
> >>>                 &(&kvm->mmu_lock)->rlock          19181          [<ffff0000080a7eec>] kvm_mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end+0x24/0x68
> >>>
> >>> .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................
> >> [slots of stuff]
> >>
> >> Well, the mmu_lock is clearly contended. Is the box in a state where you
> >> are swapping? There seem to be as many faults as contentions, which is a
> >> bit surprising...
> > 
> > I don't think it is swapping but need to double check.
> 
> It is the number of aborts that is staggering. And each one of them
> leads to the mmu_lock being contended. So something seems to be taking
> its sweet time holding the damned lock.

Can you elaborate on the aborts, I'm not familiar with KVM but from a
first look I thought kvm_handle_guest_abort() is in the normal path
when a vcpu is stopped. Is that wrong?

--Jan

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jan Glauber <jan.glauber@caviumnetworks.com>
To: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, "Paolo Bonzini" <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
	"Radim Krčmář" <rkrcmar@redhat.com>,
	"Christoffer Dall" <christoffer.dall@linaro.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: RCU stall with high number of KVM vcpus
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 08:52:49 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171114075249.GB16731@hc> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7dda7be2-f392-8056-d4d3-372bb867729a@arm.com>

On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 06:11:19PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 13/11/17 17:35, Jan Glauber wrote:

[...]

> >>> numbers don't look good, see waittime-max:
> >>>
> >>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>                               class name    con-bounces    contentions   waittime-min   waittime-max waittime-total   waittime-avg    acq-bounces   acquisitions   holdtime-min   holdtime-max holdtime-total   holdtime-avg
> >>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>>                 &(&kvm->mmu_lock)->rlock:      99346764       99406604           0.14  1321260806.59 710654434972.0        7148.97      154228320      225122857           0.13   917688890.60  3705916481.39          16.46
> >>>                 ------------------------
> >>>                 &(&kvm->mmu_lock)->rlock       99365598          [<ffff0000080b43b8>] kvm_handle_guest_abort+0x4c0/0x950
> >>>                 &(&kvm->mmu_lock)->rlock          25164          [<ffff0000080a4e30>] kvm_mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start+0x70/0xe8
> >>>                 &(&kvm->mmu_lock)->rlock          14934          [<ffff0000080a7eec>] kvm_mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end+0x24/0x68
> >>>                 &(&kvm->mmu_lock)->rlock            908          [<ffff00000810a1f0>] __cond_resched_lock+0x68/0xb8
> >>>                 ------------------------
> >>>                 &(&kvm->mmu_lock)->rlock              3          [<ffff0000080b34c8>] stage2_flush_vm+0x60/0xd8
> >>>                 &(&kvm->mmu_lock)->rlock       99186296          [<ffff0000080b43b8>] kvm_handle_guest_abort+0x4c0/0x950
> >>>                 &(&kvm->mmu_lock)->rlock         179238          [<ffff0000080a4e30>] kvm_mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start+0x70/0xe8
> >>>                 &(&kvm->mmu_lock)->rlock          19181          [<ffff0000080a7eec>] kvm_mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end+0x24/0x68
> >>>
> >>> .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................
> >> [slots of stuff]
> >>
> >> Well, the mmu_lock is clearly contended. Is the box in a state where you
> >> are swapping? There seem to be as many faults as contentions, which is a
> >> bit surprising...
> > 
> > I don't think it is swapping but need to double check.
> 
> It is the number of aborts that is staggering. And each one of them
> leads to the mmu_lock being contended. So something seems to be taking
> its sweet time holding the damned lock.

Can you elaborate on the aborts, I'm not familiar with KVM but from a
first look I thought kvm_handle_guest_abort() is in the normal path
when a vcpu is stopped. Is that wrong?

--Jan

  parent reply	other threads:[~2017-11-14  7:52 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <20171113131000.GA10546@hc>
2017-11-13 13:47 ` RCU stall with high number of KVM vcpus Marc Zyngier
2017-11-13 13:47   ` Marc Zyngier
2017-11-13 17:35   ` Jan Glauber
2017-11-13 17:35     ` Jan Glauber
2017-11-13 18:11     ` Marc Zyngier
2017-11-13 18:11       ` Marc Zyngier
2017-11-13 18:40       ` Jan Glauber
2017-11-13 18:40         ` Jan Glauber
2017-11-14 13:30         ` Marc Zyngier
2017-11-14 13:30           ` Marc Zyngier
2017-11-14 14:19           ` Jan Glauber
2017-11-14 14:19             ` Jan Glauber
2017-11-14  7:52       ` Jan Glauber [this message]
2017-11-14  7:52         ` Jan Glauber
2017-11-14  8:49         ` Marc Zyngier
2017-11-14  8:49           ` Marc Zyngier
2017-11-14 11:34           ` Suzuki K Poulose
2017-11-14 11:34             ` Suzuki K Poulose
2017-11-13 18:13     ` Shameerali Kolothum Thodi
2017-11-13 18:13       ` Shameerali Kolothum Thodi
2017-11-14  7:49       ` Jan Glauber
2017-11-14  7:49         ` Jan Glauber

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20171114075249.GB16731@hc \
    --to=jan.glauber@caviumnetworks.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.