From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@redhat.com>
Cc: James Houghton <jthoughton@google.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev>,
Wei Xu <weixugc@google.com>, Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com>,
Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@google.com>,
kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 00/11] KVM: x86/mmu: Age sptes locklessly
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2025 17:13:07 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Z7UwI-9zqnhpmg30@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <025b409c5ca44055a5f90d2c67e76af86617e222.camel@redhat.com>
On Tue, Feb 18, 2025, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> On Tue, 2025-02-04 at 00:40 +0000, James Houghton wrote:
> > By aging sptes locklessly with the TDP MMU and the shadow MMU, neither
> > vCPUs nor reclaim (mmu_notifier_invalidate_range*) will get stuck
> > waiting for aging. This contention reduction improves guest performance
> > and saves a significant amount of Google Cloud's CPU usage, and it has
> > valuable improvements for ChromeOS, as Yu has mentioned previously[1].
> >
> > Please see v8[8] for some performance results using
> > access_tracking_perf_test patched to use MGLRU.
> >
> > Neither access_tracking_perf_test nor mmu_stress_test trigger any
> > splats (with CONFIG_LOCKDEP=y) with the TDP MMU and with the shadow MMU.
>
>
> Hi, I have a question about this patch series and about the
> access_tracking_perf_test:
>
> Some time ago, I investigated a failure in access_tracking_perf_test which
> shows up in our CI.
>
> The root cause was that 'folio_clear_idle' doesn't clear the idle bit when
> MGLRU is enabled, and overall I got the impression that MGLRU is not
> compatible with idle page tracking.
>
> I thought that this patch series and the 'mm: multi-gen LRU: Have secondary
> MMUs participate in MM_WALK' patch series could address this but the test
> still fails.
>
>
> For the reference the exact problem is:
>
> 1. Idle bits for guest memory under test are set via /sys/kernel/mm/page_idle/bitmap
>
> 2. Guest dirties memory, which leads to A/D bits being set in the secondary mappings.
>
> 3. A NUMA autobalance code write protects the guest memory. KVM in response
> evicts the SPTE mappings with A/D bit set, and while doing so tells mm
> that pages were accessed using 'folio_mark_accessed' (via kvm_set_page_accessed (*) )
> but due to MLGRU the call doesn't clear the idle bit and thus all the traces
> of the guest access disappear and the kernel thinks that the page is still idle.
>
> I can say that the root cause of this is that folio_mark_accessed doesn't do
> what it supposed to do.
>
> Calling 'folio_clear_idle(folio);' in MLGRU case in folio_mark_accessed()
> will probably fix this but I don't have enough confidence to say if this is
> all that is needed to fix this. If this is the case I can send a patch.
My understanding is that the behavior is deliberate. Per Yu[1], page_idle/bitmap
effectively isn't supported by MGLRU.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAOUHufZeADNp_y=Ng+acmMMgnTR=ZGFZ7z-m6O47O=CmJauWjw@mail.gmail.com
> This patch makes the test pass (but only on 6.12 kernel and below, see below):
>
> diff --git a/mm/swap.c b/mm/swap.c
> index 59f30a981c6f..2013e1f4d572 100644
> --- a/mm/swap.c
> +++ b/mm/swap.c
> @@ -460,7 +460,7 @@ void folio_mark_accessed(struct folio *folio)
> {
> if (lru_gen_enabled()) {
> folio_inc_refs(folio);
> - return;
> + goto clear_idle_bit;
> }
>
> if (!folio_test_referenced(folio)) {
> @@ -485,6 +485,7 @@ void folio_mark_accessed(struct folio *folio)
> folio_clear_referenced(folio);
> workingset_activation(folio);
> }
> +clear_idle_bit:
> if (folio_test_idle(folio))
> folio_clear_idle(folio);
> }
>
>
> To always reproduce this, it is best to use a patch to make the test run in a
> loop, like below (although the test fails without this as well).
..
> With the above patch applied, you will notice after 4-6 iterations that the
> number of still idle pages soars:
>
> Populating memory : 0.798882357s
...
> vCPU0: idle pages: 132558 out of 262144, failed to mark idle: 0 no pfn: 0
> Mark memory idle : 2.711946690s
> Writing to idle memory : 0.302882502s
>
> ...
>
> (*) Turns out that since kernel 6.13, this code that sets accessed bit in the
> primary paging structure, when the secondary was zapped was *removed*. I
> bisected this to commit:
>
> 66bc627e7fee KVM: x86/mmu: Don't mark "struct page" accessed when zapping SPTEs
>
> So now the access_tracking_test is broken regardless of MGLRU.
Just to confirm, do you see failures on 6.13 with MGLRU disabled?
> Any ideas on how to fix all this mess?
The easy answer is to skip the test if MGLRU is in use, or if NUMA balancing is
enabled. In a real-world scenario, if the guest is actually accessing the pages
that get PROT_NONE'd by NUMA balancing, they will be marked accessed when they're
faulted back in. There's a window where page_idle/bitmap could be read between
making the VMA PROT_NONE and re-accessing the page from the guest, but IMO that's
one of the many flaws of NUMA balancing.
That said, one thing is quite odd. In the failing case, *half* of the guest pages
are still idle. That's quite insane.
Aha! I wonder if in the failing case, the vCPU gets migrated to a pCPU on a
different node, and that causes NUMA balancing to go crazy and zap pretty much
all of guest memory. If that's what's happening, then a better solution for the
NUMA balancing issue would be to affine the vCPU to a single NUMA node (or hard
pin it to a single pCPU?).
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-02-19 1:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-02-04 0:40 [PATCH v9 00/11] KVM: x86/mmu: Age sptes locklessly James Houghton
2025-02-04 0:40 ` [PATCH v9 01/11] KVM: Rename kvm_handle_hva_range() James Houghton
2025-02-04 0:40 ` [PATCH v9 02/11] KVM: Add lockless memslot walk to KVM James Houghton
2025-02-14 15:26 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-02-14 19:27 ` James Houghton
2025-02-04 0:40 ` [PATCH v9 03/11] KVM: x86/mmu: Factor out spte atomic bit clearing routine James Houghton
2025-02-04 0:40 ` [PATCH v9 04/11] KVM: x86/mmu: Relax locking for kvm_test_age_gfn() and kvm_age_gfn() James Houghton
2025-02-12 22:07 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-02-13 0:25 ` James Houghton
2025-02-04 0:40 ` [PATCH v9 05/11] KVM: x86/mmu: Rename spte_has_volatile_bits() to spte_needs_atomic_write() James Houghton
2025-02-12 22:09 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-02-13 0:26 ` James Houghton
2025-02-04 0:40 ` [PATCH v9 06/11] KVM: x86/mmu: Skip shadow MMU test_young if TDP MMU reports page as young James Houghton
2025-02-04 0:40 ` [PATCH v9 07/11] KVM: x86/mmu: Only check gfn age in shadow MMU if indirect_shadow_pages > 0 James Houghton
2025-02-04 0:40 ` [PATCH v9 08/11] KVM: x86/mmu: Refactor low level rmap helpers to prep for walking w/o mmu_lock James Houghton
2025-02-04 0:40 ` [PATCH v9 09/11] KVM: x86/mmu: Add infrastructure to allow walking rmaps outside of mmu_lock James Houghton
2025-02-04 0:40 ` [PATCH v9 10/11] KVM: x86/mmu: Add support for lockless walks of rmap SPTEs James Houghton
2025-02-04 0:40 ` [PATCH v9 11/11] KVM: x86/mmu: Support rmap walks without holding mmu_lock when aging gfns James Houghton
2025-02-15 0:50 ` [PATCH v9 00/11] KVM: x86/mmu: Age sptes locklessly Sean Christopherson
2025-02-18 19:29 ` Maxim Levitsky
2025-02-19 1:13 ` Sean Christopherson [this message]
2025-02-19 18:56 ` James Houghton
2025-02-25 22:00 ` Maxim Levitsky
2025-02-26 0:50 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-02-26 18:39 ` Maxim Levitsky
2025-02-27 0:51 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-02-27 1:54 ` Maxim Levitsky
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=Z7UwI-9zqnhpmg30@google.com \
--to=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=axelrasmussen@google.com \
--cc=dmatlack@google.com \
--cc=jthoughton@google.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=mlevitsk@redhat.com \
--cc=oliver.upton@linux.dev \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=weixugc@google.com \
--cc=yuzhao@google.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox