From: Bharata B Rao <bharata@amd.com>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>, linux-mm@kvack.org
Cc: 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, yuzhao@google.com, kinseyho@google.com,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>, Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Hard and soft lockups with FIO and LTP runs on a large system
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2024 16:01:05 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ca9b925f-4f14-4749-8f28-83fd21f8ce6a@amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3128c3c0-ede2-4930-a841-a1da56e797d7@suse.cz>
On 17-Jul-24 3:12 PM, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 7/3/24 5:11 PM, Bharata B Rao wrote:
>> Many soft and hard lockups are seen with upstream kernel when running a
>> bunch of tests that include FIO and LTP filesystem test on 10 NVME
>> disks. The lockups can appear anywhere between 2 to 48 hours. Originally
>> this was reported on a large customer VM instance with passthrough NVME
>> disks on older kernels(v5.4 based). However, similar problems were
>> reproduced when running the tests on bare metal with latest upstream
>> kernel (v6.10-rc3). Other lockups with different signatures are seen but
>> in this report, only those related to MM area are being discussed.
>> Also note that the subsequent description is related to the lockups in
>> bare metal upstream (and not VM).
>>
>> The general observation is that the problem usually surfaces when the
>> system free memory goes very low and page cache/buffer consumption hits
>> the ceiling. Most of the times the two contended locks are lruvec and
>> inode->i_lock spinlocks.
>>
>> - Could this be a scalability issue in LRU list handling and/or page
>> cache invalidation typical to a large system configuration?
>
> Seems to me it could be (except that ZONE_DMA corner case) a general
> scalability issue in that you tweak some part of the kernel and the
> contention moves elsewhere. At least in MM we have per-node locks so this
> means 256 CPUs per lock? It used to be that there were not that many
> (cores/threads) per a physical CPU and its NUMA node, so many cpus would
> mean also more NUMA nodes where the locks contention would distribute among
> them. I think you could try fakenuma to create these nodes artificially and
> see if it helps for the MM part. But if the contention moves to e.g. an
> inode lock, I'm not sure what to do about that then.
See below...
>
<SNIP>
>>
>> 3) AMD has a BIOS setting called NPS (Nodes per socket), using which a
>> socket can be further partitioned into smaller NUMA nodes. With NPS=4,
>> there will be four NUMA nodes in one socket, and hence 8 NUMA nodes in
>> the system. This was done to check if having more number of kswapd
>> threads working on lesser number of folios per node would make a
>> difference. However here too, multiple soft lockups were seen (in
>> clear_shadow_entry() as seen in MGLRU case). No hard lockups were observed.
These are some softlockups seen with NPS4 mode.
watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#315 stuck for 11s! [kworker/315:1H:5153]
CPU: 315 PID: 5153 Comm: kworker/315:1H Kdump: loaded Not tainted
6.10.0-rc3-enbprftw #12
Workqueue: kblockd blk_mq_run_work_fn
RIP: 0010:handle_softirqs+0x70/0x2f0
Call Trace:
<IRQ>
__irq_exit_rcu+0x68/0x90
irq_exit_rcu+0x12/0x20
sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x85/0xb0
</IRQ>
<TASK>
asm_sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x1f/0x30
RIP: 0010:iommu_dma_map_page+0xca/0x2c0
dma_map_page_attrs+0x20d/0x2a0
nvme_prep_rq.part.0+0x63d/0x940 [nvme]
nvme_queue_rq+0x82/0x210 [nvme]
blk_mq_dispatch_rq_list+0x289/0x6d0
__blk_mq_sched_dispatch_requests+0x142/0x5f0
blk_mq_sched_dispatch_requests+0x36/0x70
blk_mq_run_work_fn+0x73/0x90
process_one_work+0x185/0x3d0
worker_thread+0x2ce/0x3e0
kthread+0xe5/0x120
ret_from_fork+0x3d/0x60
ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30
watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#0 stuck for 11s! [fio:19820]
CPU: 0 PID: 19820 Comm: fio Kdump: loaded Tainted: G L
6.10.0-rc3-enbprftw #12
RIP: 0010:native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath+0x2b8/0x300
Call Trace:
<IRQ>
</IRQ>
<TASK>
_raw_spin_lock+0x2d/0x40
clear_shadow_entry+0x3d/0x100
mapping_try_invalidate+0x11b/0x1e0
invalidate_mapping_pages+0x14/0x20
invalidate_bdev+0x40/0x50
blkdev_common_ioctl+0x5f7/0xa90
blkdev_ioctl+0x10d/0x270
__x64_sys_ioctl+0x99/0xd0
x64_sys_call+0x1219/0x20d0
do_syscall_64+0x51/0x120
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e
RIP: 0033:0x7fc92fc3ec6b
</TASK>
The above one (clear_shadow_entry) has since been fixed by Yu Zhao and
fix is in mm tree.
We had seen a couple of scenarios with zone lock contention from page
free and slab free code paths, as reported here:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/b68e43d4-91f2-4481-80a9-d166c0a43584@amd.com/
Would you have any insights on these?
Regards,
Bharata.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-07-17 10:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-07-03 15:11 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
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 [this message]
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=ca9b925f-4f14-4749-8f28-83fd21f8ce6a@amd.com \
--to=bharata@amd.com \
--cc=Neeraj.Upadhyay@amd.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=kinseyho@google.com \
--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