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.
next prev 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