Re: ipvs_syncmaster brings cpu to 100%

[Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@us.ibm.com>]

On 26.09.2005 [15:52:02 +0200], Luca Maranzano wrote:
> On 26/09/05, Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> > On 26.09.2005 [17:12:32 +0900], Horms wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 26, 2005 at 05:05:10PM +0900, Horms wrote:
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > > > > > > Furthermore, if I make an "rgrep" in the source tree of kernel 2.6.12
> > > > > > > > the function schedule_timeout() is more used than the ssleep() (517
> > > > > > > > occurrencies vs. 43), so why in ip_vs_sync.c there was this change?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The other oddity is that Horms reported on this list that on non Xeon
> > > > > > > > CPU the same version of kernel of mine does not present the problem.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm getting crazy :-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've prepared a patch, which reverts the change which was introduced
> > > > > > by Nishanth Aravamudan in February.
> > > > >
> > > > > Was the 100% cpu utilization only occurring on Xeon processors?
> > > >
> > > > That seems to be the only case where were this problem has been
> > > > observed. I don't have such a processor myself, so I haven't actually
> > > > been able to produce the problem locally.
> > > >
> > > > One reason I posted this issue to netdev was to get some more
> > > > eyes on the problem as it is puzzling to say the least.
> > > >
> > > > > Care to try to use msleep_interruptible() instead of ssleep(), as
> > > > > opposed to schedule_timeout()?
> > > >
> > > > I will send a version that does that shortly, Luca, can
> > > > you plase check that too?
> > >
> > > Here is that version of the patch. Nishanth, I take it that I do not
> > > need to set TASK_INTERRUPTABLE before calling msleep_interruptible(),
> > > please let me know if I am wrong.
> >
> > Yes, exactly. I'm just trying to narrow it down to see if it's the task
> > state that's causing the issue (which, to be honest, doesn't make a lot
> > of sense to me -- with ssleep() your load average will go up as the task
> > will be UNINTERRUPTIBLE state, but I am not sure why utilisation would
> > rise, as you are still sleeping...)

[trimmed lvs-users from my reply, as it is a closed list]

> Just to add more info, please note the output of "ps":
> 
> debld1:~# ps aux|grep ipvs
> root      3748  0.0  0.0      0     0 ?        D    12:09   0:00
> [ipvs_syncmaster]
> root      3757  0.0  0.0      0     0 ?        D    12:09   0:00
> [ipvs_syncbackup]
> 
> Note the D status, i.e. (from ps(1) man page): Uninterruptible sleep
> (usually IO)

The msleep_interruptible() change should fix that.

But that does not show 100% CPU utilisation at all, it shows 0. Did you
mean to say your load increases?

I'm still unclear what the problem is. Horms initial Cc trimmed some
important information. It would be very useful to "start over" -- at
least from the perspective of what the problem actually is.

> I hope to have a Xeon machine to make some more tests in the next
> days, in the mean time I'll try to reproduce my setup on a couple of
> VMWare Workstation machines.

Please don't top-most. It makes it really hard to write sane replies...

Thanks,
Nish