linux-kernel - Re: Hard and soft lockups with FIO and LTP runs on a large system

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: <7a06a14e-44d5-450a-bd56-1c348c2951b6@amd.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2024 10:00:45 +0530
From: Bharata B Rao <bharata@....com>
To: Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, nikunj@....com,
 "Upadhyay, Neeraj" <Neeraj.Upadhyay@....com>,
 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
 David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, willy@...radead.org, vbabka@...e.cz,
 kinseyho@...gle.com, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
Subject: Re: Hard and soft lockups with FIO and LTP runs on a large system

On 08-Jul-24 9:47 PM, Yu Zhao wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at 8:34 AM Bharata B Rao <bharata@....com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Yu Zhao,
>>
>> Thanks for your patches. See below...
>>
>> On 07-Jul-24 4:12 AM, Yu Zhao wrote:
>>> Hi Bharata,
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 3, 2024 at 9:11 AM Bharata B Rao <bharata@....com> wrote:
>>>>
>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> Some experiments tried
>>>> ======================
>>>> 1) When MGLRU was enabled many soft lockups were observed, no hard
>>>> lockups were seen for 48 hours run. Below is once such soft lockup.
>>>
>>> This is not really an MGLRU issue -- can you please try one of the
>>> attached patches? It (truncate.patch) should help with or without
>>> MGLRU.
>>
>> With truncate.patch and default LRU scheme, a few hard lockups are seen.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> In your original report, you said:
> 
>    Most of the times the two contended locks are lruvec and
>    inode->i_lock spinlocks.
>    ...
>    Often times, the perf output at the time of the problem shows
>    heavy contention on lruvec spin lock. Similar contention is
>    also observed with inode i_lock (in clear_shadow_entry path)
> 
> Based on this new report, does it mean the i_lock is not as contended,
> for the same path (truncation) you tested? If so, I'll post
> truncate.patch and add reported-by and tested-by you, unless you have
> objections.

truncate.patch has been tested on two systems with default LRU scheme 
and the lockup due to inode->i_lock hasn't been seen yet after 24 hours run.

> 
> The two paths below were contended on the LRU lock, but they already
> batch their operations. So I don't know what else we can do surgically
> to improve them.

What has been seen with this workload is that the lruvec spinlock is 
held for a long time from shrink_[active/inactive]_list path. In this 
path, there is a case in isolate_lru_folios() where scanning of LRU 
lists can become unbounded. To isolate a page from ZONE_DMA, sometimes 
scanning/skipping of more than 150 million folios were seen. There is 
already a comment in there which explains why nr_skipped shouldn't be 
counted, but is there any possibility of re-looking at this condition?

Regards,
Bharata.