On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 01:47:38PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On 13/11/17 13:10, Jan Glauber wrote: > > I'm seeing RCU stalls in the host with 4.14 when I run KVM on ARM64 (ThunderX2) with a high > > number of vcpus (60). I only use one guest that does kernel compiles in > > Is that only reproducible on 4.14? With or without VHE? Can you > reproduce this on another implementation (such as ThunderX-1)? I've reproduced it on a distro 4.13 and several vanilla 4.14 rc's and tip/locking. VHE is enabled. I've not yet tried to reproduce it with older kernels or ThunderX-1. I can check if it happens also on ThunderX-1. > > a loop. After some hours (less likely the more debugging options are > > enabled, more likely with more vcpus) RCU stalls are happening in both host & guest. > > > > Both host & guest recover after some time, until the issue is triggered > > again. > > > > Stack traces in the guest are next to useless, everything is messed up > > there. The host seems to stave on kvm->mmu_lock spin lock, the lock_stat > > Please elaborate. Messed in what way? Corrupted? The guest crashing? Or > is that a tooling issue? Every vcpu that oopses prints one line in parallel, so I get blocks like: [58880.179814] [<ffff000008084b98>] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18 [58880.179834] [<ffff000008084b98>] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18 [58880.179847] [<ffff000008084b98>] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18 [58880.179873] [<ffff000008084b98>] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18 [58880.179893] [<ffff000008084b98>] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18 [58880.179911] [<ffff000008084b98>] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18 [58880.179917] [<ffff000008084b98>] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18 [58880.180288] [<ffff000008084b98>] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18 [58880.180303] [<ffff000008084b98>] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18 [58880.180336] [<ffff000008084b98>] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18 [58880.180363] [<ffff000008084b98>] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18 [58880.180384] [<ffff000008084b98>] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18 [58880.180415] [<ffff000008084b98>] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18 [58880.180461] [<ffff000008084b98>] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18 I can send the full log if you want to have a look. > > numbers don't look good, see waittime-max: > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > class name con-bounces contentions waittime-min waittime-max waittime-total waittime-avg acq-bounces acquisitions holdtime-min holdtime-max holdtime-total holdtime-avg > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > &(&kvm->mmu_lock)->rlock: 99346764 99406604 0.14 1321260806.59 710654434972.0 7148.97 154228320 225122857 0.13 917688890.60 3705916481.39 16.46 > > ------------------------ > > &(&kvm->mmu_lock)->rlock 99365598 [<ffff0000080b43b8>] kvm_handle_guest_abort+0x4c0/0x950 > > &(&kvm->mmu_lock)->rlock 25164 [<ffff0000080a4e30>] kvm_mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start+0x70/0xe8 > > &(&kvm->mmu_lock)->rlock 14934 [<ffff0000080a7eec>] kvm_mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end+0x24/0x68 > > &(&kvm->mmu_lock)->rlock 908 [<ffff00000810a1f0>] __cond_resched_lock+0x68/0xb8 > > ------------------------ > > &(&kvm->mmu_lock)->rlock 3 [<ffff0000080b34c8>] stage2_flush_vm+0x60/0xd8 > > &(&kvm->mmu_lock)->rlock 99186296 [<ffff0000080b43b8>] kvm_handle_guest_abort+0x4c0/0x950 > > &(&kvm->mmu_lock)->rlock 179238 [<ffff0000080a4e30>] kvm_mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start+0x70/0xe8 > > &(&kvm->mmu_lock)->rlock 19181 [<ffff0000080a7eec>] kvm_mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end+0x24/0x68 > > > > ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. > [slots of stuff] > > Well, the mmu_lock is clearly contended. Is the box in a state where you > are swapping? There seem to be as many faults as contentions, which is a > bit surprising... I don't think it is swapping but need to double check. > Also, we recently moved arm64 to qrwlocks, which may have an impact. > Care to give this[1] a go and report the result? Sure, I that was my first suspision but I can reproduce the issue with and without the qrwlock patches, so these are not to blame. Also, the starving lock is a spinlock and not a qrwlock. So maybe the spinlocks have fairness issues too? --Jan > Thanks, > > M. > > [1]: https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/10/12/266 > -- > Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...