linux-kernel - Re: [Bug #12465] KVM guests stalling on 2.6.28 (bisected)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 23 Jan 2009 06:27:17 +1030
From:	Kevin Shanahan <kmshanah@...b.org.au>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Kernel Testers List <kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	bugme-daemon@...zilla.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Bug #12465] KVM guests stalling on 2.6.28 (bisected)

On Wed, 2009-01-21 at 16:18 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com> wrote:
> > It means, a scheduling problem.  Can you run the latency tracer (which 
> > only works with realtime priority), so we can tell if it is (a) kvm 
> > failing to wake up the vcpu properly or (b) the scheduler delaying the 
> > vcpu from running.
> 
> Could we please get an ftrace capture of the incident?
> 
> Firstly, it makes sense to simplify the tracing environment as much as 
> possible: for example single-CPU traces are much easier to interpret.
> 
> Can you reproduce it with just one CPU online? I.e. if you offline all the 
> other cores via:
> 
>   echo 0 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/online
> 
>   [etc.]
> 
> and keep CPU#0 only, do the latencies still occur?
> 
> If they do still occur, then please do the traces that way.
> 
> [ If they do not occur then switch back on all CPUs - we'll sort out the
>   traces ;-) ]
> 
> Then please build a function tracer kernel, by enabling:
> 
>   CONFIG_FUNCTION_TRACER=y
>   CONFIG_FUNCTION_GRAPH_TRACER=y
>   CONFIG_DYNAMIC_FTRACE=y

Looks like the function graph tracer is only in 2.6.29, so I've updated
now to 2.6.29-rc2-00013-gf3b8436.

Again, a control test to make sure the problem still occurs:

--- hermes-old.wumi.org.au ping statistics ---
64 packets transmitted, 64 received, 0% packet loss, time 63080ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.168/479.893/4015.950/894.721 ms, pipe 5

Yes, plenty of delays there. Next, checking if I can reproduce with only
one core online:

echo 0 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/online
echo 0 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu2/online
echo 0 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu3/online
...

--- hermes-old.wumi.org.au ping statistics ---
900 packets transmitted, 900 received, 0% packet loss, time 900253ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.127/38.937/2082.347/170.348 ms, pipe 3

--- hermes-old.wumi.org.au ping statistics ---
900 packets transmitted, 900 received, 0% packet loss, time 900995ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.127/428.398/17126.227/1634.980 ms, pipe 18

So it looks like I can do the simplified trace. I've run out of time for
that this morning, but I'll spend some time on it over the weekend.
Thanks for the detailed instructions - it doesn't look like it will be
too hard.

Cheers,
Kevin.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/