public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Bharata B Rao <bharata@amd.com>
To: Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com>,
	mjguzik@gmail.com, david@fromorbit.com,
	kent.overstreet@linux.dev
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, nikunj@amd.com,
	"Upadhyay, Neeraj" <Neeraj.Upadhyay@amd.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
	willy@infradead.org, vbabka@suse.cz, kinseyho@google.com,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Hard and soft lockups with FIO and LTP runs on a large system
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2024 17:33:47 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4307e984-a593-4495-b4cc-8ef509ddda03@amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAOUHufawNerxqLm7L9Yywp3HJFiYVrYO26ePUb1jH-qxNGWzyA@mail.gmail.com>

On 07-Jul-24 4:12 AM, Yu Zhao wrote:
>> Some experiments tried
>> ======================
>> 1) When MGLRU was enabled many soft lockups were observed, no hard
>> lockups were seen for 48 hours run. Below is once such soft lockup.
<snip>
>> Below preemptirqsoff trace points to preemption being disabled for more
>> than 10s and the lock in picture is lruvec spinlock.
> 
> Also if you could try the other patch (mglru.patch) please. It should
> help reduce unnecessary rotations from deactivate_file_folio(), which
> in turn should reduce the contention on the LRU lock for MGLRU.

Thanks. With mglru.patch on a MGLRU-enabled system, the below latency 
trace record is no longer seen for a 30hr workload run.

> 
>>       # tracer: preemptirqsoff
>>       #
>>       # preemptirqsoff latency trace v1.1.5 on 6.10.0-rc3-mglru-irqstrc
>>       # --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>       # latency: 10382682 us, #4/4, CPU#128 | (M:desktop VP:0, KP:0, SP:0
>> HP:0 #P:512)
>>       #    -----------------
>>       #    | task: fio-2701523 (uid:0 nice:0 policy:0 rt_prio:0)
>>       #    -----------------
>>       #  => started at: deactivate_file_folio
>>       #  => ended at:   deactivate_file_folio
>>       #
>>       #
>>       #                    _------=> CPU#
>>       #                   / _-----=> irqs-off/BH-disabled
>>       #                  | / _----=> need-resched
>>       #                  || / _---=> hardirq/softirq
>>       #                  ||| / _--=> preempt-depth
>>       #                  |||| / _-=> migrate-disable
>>       #                  ||||| /     delay
>>       #  cmd     pid     |||||| time  |   caller
>>       #     \   /        ||||||  \    |    /
>>            fio-2701523 128...1.    0us$: deactivate_file_folio
>> <-deactivate_file_folio
>>            fio-2701523 128.N.1. 10382681us : deactivate_file_folio
>> <-deactivate_file_folio
>>            fio-2701523 128.N.1. 10382683us : tracer_preempt_on
>> <-deactivate_file_folio
>>            fio-2701523 128.N.1. 10382691us : <stack trace>
>>        => deactivate_file_folio
>>        => mapping_try_invalidate
>>        => invalidate_mapping_pages
>>        => invalidate_bdev
>>        => blkdev_common_ioctl
>>        => blkdev_ioctl
>>        => __x64_sys_ioctl
>>        => x64_sys_call
>>        => do_syscall_64
>>        => entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe

However the contention now has shifted to inode_hash_lock. Around 55 
softlockups in ilookup() were observed:

# tracer: preemptirqsoff
#
# preemptirqsoff latency trace v1.1.5 on 6.10.0-rc3-trnmglru
# --------------------------------------------------------------------
# latency: 10620430 us, #4/4, CPU#260 | (M:desktop VP:0, KP:0, SP:0 HP:0 
#P:512)
#    -----------------
#    | task: fio-3244715 (uid:0 nice:0 policy:0 rt_prio:0)
#    -----------------
#  => started at: ilookup
#  => ended at:   ilookup
#
#
#                    _------=> CPU#
#                   / _-----=> irqs-off/BH-disabled
#                  | / _----=> need-resched
#                  || / _---=> hardirq/softirq
#                  ||| / _--=> preempt-depth
#                  |||| / _-=> migrate-disable
#                  ||||| /     delay
#  cmd     pid     |||||| time  |   caller
#     \   /        ||||||  \    |    /
      fio-3244715 260...1.    0us$: _raw_spin_lock <-ilookup
      fio-3244715 260.N.1. 10620429us : _raw_spin_unlock <-ilookup
      fio-3244715 260.N.1. 10620430us : tracer_preempt_on <-ilookup
      fio-3244715 260.N.1. 10620440us : <stack trace>
=> _raw_spin_unlock
=> ilookup
=> blkdev_get_no_open
=> blkdev_open
=> do_dentry_open
=> vfs_open
=> path_openat
=> do_filp_open
=> do_sys_openat2
=> __x64_sys_openat
=> x64_sys_call
=> do_syscall_64
=> entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe

It appears that scalability issues with inode_hash_lock has been brought 
up multiple times in the past and there were patches to address the same.

https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231206060629.2827226-9-david@fromorbit.com/
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240611173824.535995-2-mjguzik@gmail.com/

CC'ing FS folks/list for awareness/comments.

Regards,
Bharata.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2024-07-10 12:04 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-07-03 15:11 Hard and soft lockups with FIO and LTP runs on a large system Bharata B Rao
2024-07-06 22:42 ` Yu Zhao
2024-07-08 14:34   ` Bharata B Rao
2024-07-08 16:17     ` Yu Zhao
2024-07-09  4:30       ` Bharata B Rao
2024-07-09  5:58         ` Yu Zhao
2024-07-11  5:43           ` Bharata B Rao
2024-07-15  5:19             ` Bharata B Rao
2024-07-19 20:21               ` Yu Zhao
2024-07-20  7:57                 ` Mateusz Guzik
2024-07-22  4:17                   ` Bharata B Rao
2024-07-22  4:12                 ` Bharata B Rao
2024-07-25  9:59               ` zhaoyang.huang
2024-07-26  3:26                 ` Zhaoyang Huang
2024-07-29  4:49                   ` Bharata B Rao
2024-08-13 11:04           ` Usama Arif
2024-08-13 17:43             ` Yu Zhao
2024-07-17  9:37         ` Vlastimil Babka
2024-07-17 10:50           ` Bharata B Rao
2024-07-17 11:15             ` Hillf Danton
2024-07-18  9:02               ` Bharata B Rao
2024-07-10 12:03   ` Bharata B Rao [this message]
2024-07-10 12:24     ` Mateusz Guzik
2024-07-10 13:04       ` Mateusz Guzik
2024-07-15  5:22         ` Bharata B Rao
2024-07-15  6:48           ` Mateusz Guzik
2024-07-10 18:04     ` Yu Zhao
2024-07-17  9:42 ` Vlastimil Babka
2024-07-17 10:31   ` Bharata B Rao
2024-07-17 16:44     ` Karim Manaouil
2024-07-17 11:29   ` Mateusz Guzik
2024-07-18  9:00     ` Bharata B Rao
2024-07-18 12:11       ` Mateusz Guzik
2024-07-19  6:16         ` Bharata B Rao
2024-07-19  7:06           ` Yu Zhao
2024-07-19 14:26           ` Mateusz Guzik
2024-07-17 16:34   ` Karim Manaouil

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=4307e984-a593-4495-b4cc-8ef509ddda03@amd.com \
    --to=bharata@amd.com \
    --cc=Neeraj.Upadhyay@amd.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=david@fromorbit.com \
    --cc=david@redhat.com \
    --cc=kent.overstreet@linux.dev \
    --cc=kinseyho@google.com \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mgorman@suse.de \
    --cc=mjguzik@gmail.com \
    --cc=nikunj@amd.com \
    --cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
    --cc=willy@infradead.org \
    --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