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]

Message-ID: <4975C586.8090605@redhat.com>
Date:	Tue, 20 Jan 2009 14:37:26 +0200
From:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC:	Kevin Shanahan <kmshanah@...b.org.au>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Kernel Testers List <kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org>,
	Kevin Shanahan <kmshanah@...xo.wumi.org.au>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [Bug #12465] KVM guests stalling on 2.6.28 (bisected)

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Kevin Shanahan <kmshanah@...b.org.au> wrote:
>
>   
>> On Mon, 2009-01-19 at 22:45 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>     
>>> This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
>>> of regressions introduced between 2.6.27 and 2.6.28.
>>>
>>> The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
>>> introduced between 2.6.27 and 2.6.28.  Please verify if it still should
>>> be listed and let me know (either way).
>>>
>>>
>>> Bug-Entry	: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12465
>>> Subject		: KVM guests stalling on 2.6.28 (bisected)
>>> Submitter	: Kevin Shanahan <kmshanah@...b.org.au>
>>> Date		: 2009-01-17 03:37 (3 days old)
>>>       
>> Yes, please keep this on the list.
>>     
>
> This only seems to occur under KVM, right? I.e. you tested it with -no-kvm 
> and the problem went away, correct?
>
> This suggests some sort of KVM-specific problem. Scheduler latencies in 
> the seconds that occur under normal load situations are noticed and 
> reported quickly - and there are no such open regressions currently.
>
>   

Not necessarily.  -no-kvm runs with only one thread, compared to kvm 
that runs with 1 + nr_cpus threads.

> Avi, can you reproduce these latencies? 

No.

> A possibly theory would be some 
> sort of guest wakeup problem/race triggered by a shift in 
> preemption/scheduling patterns. Or something related to preempt-notifiers 
> (which KVM is using). A genuine scheduler bug is in the cards too, but the 
> KVM-only angle of this bug gives it a low probability.
>   

Can we trace task wakeups somehow? (latency between wakeup and actually 
running).

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

--
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/