Message-ID: <832697b9-3652-422d-a019-8c0574a188ac@proxmox.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2024 14:42:01 +0100
From: Friedrich Weber <f.weber@...xmox.com>
To: kvm@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
 Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Temporary KVM guest hangs connected to KSM and NUMA balancer

Hi,

some of our (Proxmox VE) users have been reporting [1] that guests
occasionally become unresponsive with high CPU usage for some time
(varying between ~1 and more than 60 seconds). After that time, the
guests come back and continue running fine. Windows guests seem most
affected (not responding to pings during the hang, RDP sessions time
out). But we also got reports about Linux guests. This issue was not
present while we provided (host) kernel 5.15 and was first reported when
we rolled out a kernel based on 6.2. The reports seem to concern NUMA
hosts only. Users reported that the issue becomes easier to trigger the
more memory is assigned to the guests. Setting mitigations=off was
reported to alleviate (but not eliminate) the issue. The issue seems to
disappear after disabling KSM.

We can reproduce the issue with a Windows guest on a NUMA host, though
only occasionally and not very reliably. Using a bpftrace script like
[7] we found the hangs to correlate with long-running invocations of
`task_numa_work` (more than 500ms), suggesting a connection to the NUMA
balancer. Indeed, we can't reproduce the issue after disabling the NUMA
balancer with `echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/numa_balancing` [2] and got a
user confirming this fixes the issue for them [3].

Since the Windows reproducer is not very stable, we tried to find a
Linux guest reproducer and have found one (described below [0]) that
triggers a very similar (hopefully the same) issue. The reproducer
triggers the hangs also if the host is on current Linux 6.7-rc8
(610a9b8f). A kernel bisect points to the following as the commit
introducing the issue:

f47e5bbb ("KVM: x86/mmu: Zap only TDP MMU leafs in zap range and
mmu_notifier unmap")

which is why I cc'ed Sean and Paolo. Because of the possible KSM
connection I cc'ed Andrew and linux-mm.

Indeed, on f47e5bbb~1 = a80ced6e ("KVM: SVM: fix panic on out-of-bounds
guest IRQ") the reproducer does not trigger the hang, and on f47e5bbb it
triggers the hang.

Currently I don't know enough about the KVM/KSM/NUMA balancer code to
tell how the patch may trigger these issues. Any idea who we could ask
about this, or how we could further debug this would be greatly appreciated!

Let me know if I can provide any more information.

Best,

Friedrich

[0]

Reproducer (example outputs with the host on f47e5bbb):

* Host with 256GiB memory, 2 NUMA nodes (for output of `numactl -H` see [4])
* Disable ksmtuned on the host, then manually enable and "boost" KSM:

  echo 1250 > /sys/kernel/mm/ksm/pages_to_scan
  echo 1 > /sys/kernel/mm/ksm/run

* Create Linux guest (e.g. Debian 12) with 140GiB memory. There is no
virtio-balloon-pci device, this is to prevent the host from reclaiming
memory of the guest (this mimics the behavior of Windows guests). See
[5] for QEMU 8.2 command line.
* On the guest, run a program that allocates 128 GiB memory in 1 GiB
chunks, initializes it with an arbitrary byte (ASCII 'A'), sleeps for
60s and exits (allocate.c [6]):

  ./allocate 128

* Wait until KSM sharing pages are at >30GiB
(/sys/kernel/mm/ksm/pages_sharing exceeds 7864320), that takes ~20
minutes for us.
* Optionally lower KSM pages_to_scan to a reasonable value to rule it
out as a factor:

  echo 100 > /sys/kernel/mm/ksm/pages_to_scan
  echo 1 > /sys/kernel/mm/ksm/run

* From a different machine, run a continuous `ping -D` against the guest
* On the host, run bpftrace to trace `task_numa_work` invocations over
500ms [7]
* On the guest, run the allocation program 32 times in parallel, each
process allocating 4x1 GiB of memory (32 * 4 = 128):

  for i in $(seq 32); do ./allocate 4 & done

* A few seconds later while the processes are still running, the guest
becomes unresponsive for some time, thus the ping response times greatly
increase. For example, here the guest does not respond at all for ~100
seconds:

[1704360680.898427] 64 bytes from 192.168.18.11: icmp_seq=47 ttl=64
time=0.447 ms
[1704360681.922522] 64 bytes from 192.168.18.11: icmp_seq=48 ttl=64
time=0.515 ms
[1704360710.369961] From 192.168.16.32 icmp_seq=73 Destination Host
Unreachable
[1704360713.442023] From 192.168.16.32 icmp_seq=76 Destination Host
Unreachable
... repeats ...
[1704360786.081958] From 192.168.16.32 icmp_seq=147 Destination Host
Unreachable
[1704360789.154021] From 192.168.16.32 icmp_seq=151 Destination Host
Unreachable
[1704360790.194049] 64 bytes from 192.168.18.11: icmp_seq=49 ttl=64
time=107244 ms
[1704360790.196813] 64 bytes from 192.168.18.11: icmp_seq=50 ttl=64
time=106227 ms
[1704360790.196998] 64 bytes from 192.168.18.11: icmp_seq=51 ttl=64
time=105203 ms
[1704360790.206355] 64 bytes from 192.168.18.11: icmp_seq=52 ttl=64
time=104188 ms
[1704360790.206721] 64 bytes from 192.168.18.11: icmp_seq=53 ttl=64
time=103165 ms
[1704360790.206837] 64 bytes from 192.168.18.11: icmp_seq=54 ttl=64
time=102141 ms
[...]
[1704360799.307342] 64 bytes from 192.168.18.11: icmp_seq=163 ttl=64
time=0.335 ms
[1704360800.322355] 64 bytes from 192.168.18.11: icmp_seq=164 ttl=64
time=0.360 ms
[1704360810.481320] 64 bytes from 192.168.18.11: icmp_seq=165 ttl=64
time=9135 ms
[1704360810.481331] 64 bytes from 192.168.18.11: icmp_seq=166 ttl=64
time=8111 ms
[1704360810.481334] 64 bytes from 192.168.18.11: icmp_seq=167 ttl=64
time=7083 ms
[1704360810.481336] 64 bytes from 192.168.18.11: icmp_seq=168 ttl=64
time=6059 ms
[1704360810.481339] 64 bytes from 192.168.18.11: icmp_seq=169 ttl=64
time=5039 ms
[1704360810.481409] 64 bytes from 192.168.18.11: icmp_seq=170 ttl=64
time=4015 ms
[...]
[1704360827.906610] 64 bytes from 192.168.18.11: icmp_seq=191 ttl=64
time=0.591 ms
[1704360828.930570] 64 bytes from 192.168.18.11: icmp_seq=192 ttl=64
time=0.576 ms

* At the same time, bpftrace logs long-running invocations of
`task_numa_work`, some examples:

[1704360683] task_numa_work (tid=15476) took 868 ms
[1704360683] task_numa_work (tid=15457) took 984 ms
[1704360683] task_numa_work (tid=15480) took 1104 ms
[...]
[1704360751] task_numa_work (tid=15462) took 13916 ms
[1704360753] task_numa_work (tid=15453) took 21708 ms
[...]
[1704360805] task_numa_work (tid=15485) took 1029 ms
[1704360807] task_numa_work (tid=15485) took 1245 ms
[1704360807] task_numa_work (tid=15446) took 2483 ms
[1704360808] task_numa_work (tid=15466) took 4149 ms
[1704360810] task_numa_work (tid=15446) took 3409 ms
[...]
[1704360814] task_numa_work (tid=15464) took 1733 ms
[1704360816] task_numa_work (tid=15464) took 1844 ms

* After some time (~100s in the example above) the guest comes back and
ping response times go back to normal. The guest journal logs some soft
lockups, e.g.:

Jan 04 10:33:10 debian kernel: rcu: INFO: rcu_preempt detected stalls on
CPUs/tasks:
Jan 04 10:33:10 debian kernel: watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#10 stuck
for 101s! [allocate:1169]
Jan 04 10:33:10 debian kernel: watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#31 stuck
for 101s! [allocate:1180]

* We cannot trigger the hangs anymore after disabling the NUMA balancer
-- ping response times stay under 1ms then.

[1] https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/130727/
[2] https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/130727/page-7#post-601617
[3] https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/130727/page-7#post-603096
[4]

# numactl -H
available: 2 nodes (0-1)
node 0 cpus: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 32 33 34 35 36 37 38
39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47
node 0 size: 128649 MB
node 0 free: 124293 MB
node 1 cpus: 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 48 49 50 51
52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63
node 1 size: 128971 MB
node 1 free: 126587 MB
node distances:
node   0   1
  0:  10  21
  1:  21  10

[5]

./qemu-system-x86_64 \
  -accel kvm \
  -chardev
'socket,id=qmp,path=/var/run/qemu-server/101.qmp,server=on,wait=off' \
  -mon 'chardev=qmp,mode=control' \
  -chardev 'socket,id=qmp-event,path=/var/run/qmeventd.sock,reconnect=5' \
  -mon 'chardev=qmp-event,mode=control' \
  -pidfile /var/run/qemu-server/101.pid \
  -smp '64,sockets=1,cores=64,maxcpus=64' \
  -nodefaults \
  -vnc 'unix:/var/run/qemu-server/101.vnc,password=on' \
  -cpu qemu64,enforce,+kvm_pv_eoi,+kvm_pv_unhalt \
  -m 143360 \
  -device 'pci-bridge,id=pci.3,chassis_nr=3,bus=pci.0,addr=0x5' \
  -device 'VGA,id=vga,bus=pci.0,addr=0x2' \
  -device 'virtio-scsi-pci,id=virtioscsi0,bus=pci.3,addr=0x1' \
  -drive 'file=/dev/pve/vm-101-disk-0,if=none,id=drive-scsi0,format=raw' \
  -device
'scsi-hd,bus=virtioscsi0.0,channel=0,scsi-id=0,lun=0,drive=drive-scsi0,id=scsi0,bootindex=100'
\
  -netdev
'type=tap,id=net0,ifname=tap101i0,script=/var/lib/qemu-server/pve-bridge,downscript=/var/lib/qemu-server/pve-bridgedown,vhost=on'
\
  -device
'virtio-net-pci,mac=BC:24:11:09:20:0C,netdev=net0,bus=pci.0,addr=0x12,id=net0,rx_queue_size=1024,tx_queue_size=256,bootindex=102'
\
  -machine 'type=pc'

[6]

#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <assert.h>

const size_t chunk_size = 1024 * 1024 * 1024; // 1 GiB

void *alloc_chunk(char ch) {
	size_t init_size = 65536;
	size_t init_done = 0;
	void *base = malloc(chunk_size);
	assert(base);

	while (init_done < chunk_size && init_done + init_size < chunk_size) {
		memset((char *)base + init_done, ch, init_size);
		init_done += init_size;
	}

	return base;
}

int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
	int num_chunks;

	assert(argc == 2);
	num_chunks = atoi(argv[1]);
	assert(num_chunks >= 0 && num_chunks <= 1024);

	char **chunks = malloc(num_chunks * sizeof(char *));

	fprintf(stderr, "alloc %d chunks\n", num_chunks);
	for (int i = 0; i < num_chunks; i++) {
		fprintf(stderr, "alloc #%d: %c\n", i, 'A');
		chunks[i] = alloc_chunk('A');
	}
	fprintf(stderr, "sleeping 1min\n");
	sleep(60);
	return 0;
}

[7]

kfunc:task_numa_work { @start[tid] = nsecs; }
kretfunc:task_numa_work /@...rt[tid]/ {
	$diff = nsecs - @start[tid];
	if ($diff > 500000000) { // 500ms
		time("[%s] ");
		printf("task_numa_work (tid=%d) took %d ms\n", tid, $diff / 1000000);
	}
	delete(@start[tid]);
}

Powered by blists - more mailing lists