Message-ID: <Z7UwI-9zqnhpmg30@google.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2025 17:13:07 -0800
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@...hat.com>
Cc: James Houghton <jthoughton@...gle.com>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, 
	David Matlack <dmatlack@...gle.com>, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>, 
	Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>, Wei Xu <weixugc@...gle.com>, Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>, 
	Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@...gle.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 00/11] KVM: x86/mmu: Age sptes locklessly

On Tue, Feb 18, 2025, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> On Tue, 2025-02-04 at 00:40 +0000, James Houghton wrote:
> > By aging sptes locklessly with the TDP MMU and the shadow MMU, neither
> > vCPUs nor reclaim (mmu_notifier_invalidate_range*) will get stuck
> > waiting for aging. This contention reduction improves guest performance
> > and saves a significant amount of Google Cloud's CPU usage, and it has
> > valuable improvements for ChromeOS, as Yu has mentioned previously[1].
> > 
> > Please see v8[8] for some performance results using
> > access_tracking_perf_test patched to use MGLRU.
> > 
> > Neither access_tracking_perf_test nor mmu_stress_test trigger any
> > splats (with CONFIG_LOCKDEP=y) with the TDP MMU and with the shadow MMU.
> 
> 
> Hi, I have a question about this patch series and about the
> access_tracking_perf_test:
> 
> Some time ago, I investigated a failure in access_tracking_perf_test which
> shows up in our CI.
> 
> The root cause was that 'folio_clear_idle' doesn't clear the idle bit when
> MGLRU is enabled, and overall I got the impression that MGLRU is not
> compatible with idle page tracking.
>
> I thought that this patch series and the 'mm: multi-gen LRU: Have secondary
> MMUs participate in MM_WALK' patch series could address this but the test
> still fails.
> 
> 
> For the reference the exact problem is:
> 
> 1. Idle bits for guest memory under test are set via /sys/kernel/mm/page_idle/bitmap
> 
> 2. Guest dirties memory, which leads to A/D bits being set in the secondary mappings.
> 
> 3. A NUMA autobalance code write protects the guest memory. KVM in response
>    evicts the SPTE mappings with A/D bit set, and while doing so tells mm
>    that pages were accessed using 'folio_mark_accessed' (via kvm_set_page_accessed (*) )
>    but due to MLGRU the call doesn't clear the idle bit and thus all the traces
>    of the guest access disappear and the kernel thinks that the page is still idle.
> 
> I can say that the root cause of this is that folio_mark_accessed doesn't do
> what it supposed to do.
> 
> Calling 'folio_clear_idle(folio);' in MLGRU case in folio_mark_accessed()
> will probably fix this but I don't have enough confidence to say if this is
> all that is needed to fix this.  If this is the case I can send a patch.

My understanding is that the behavior is deliberate.  Per Yu[1], page_idle/bitmap
effectively isn't supported by MGLRU.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAOUHufZeADNp_y=Ng+acmMMgnTR=ZGFZ7z-m6O47O=CmJauWjw@mail.gmail.com

> This patch makes the test pass (but only on 6.12 kernel and below, see below):
> 
> diff --git a/mm/swap.c b/mm/swap.c
> index 59f30a981c6f..2013e1f4d572 100644
> --- a/mm/swap.c
> +++ b/mm/swap.c
> @@ -460,7 +460,7 @@ void folio_mark_accessed(struct folio *folio)
>  {
>         if (lru_gen_enabled()) {
>                 folio_inc_refs(folio);
> -               return;
> +               goto clear_idle_bit;
>         }
>  
>         if (!folio_test_referenced(folio)) {
> @@ -485,6 +485,7 @@ void folio_mark_accessed(struct folio *folio)
>                 folio_clear_referenced(folio);
>                 workingset_activation(folio);
>         }
> +clear_idle_bit:
>         if (folio_test_idle(folio))
>                 folio_clear_idle(folio);
>  }
> 
> 
> To always reproduce this, it is best to use a patch to make the test run in a
> loop, like below (although the test fails without this as well).

..

> With the above patch applied, you will notice after 4-6 iterations that the
> number of still idle pages soars:
> 
> Populating memory             : 0.798882357s

...

> vCPU0: idle pages: 132558 out of 262144, failed to mark idle: 0 no pfn: 0
> Mark memory idle              : 2.711946690s
> Writing to idle memory        : 0.302882502s
> 
> ...
> 
> (*) Turns out that since kernel 6.13, this code that sets accessed bit in the
> primary paging structure, when the secondary was zapped was *removed*. I
> bisected this to commit:
> 
> 66bc627e7fee KVM: x86/mmu: Don't mark "struct page" accessed when zapping SPTEs
> 
> So now the access_tracking_test is broken regardless of MGLRU.

Just to confirm, do you see failures on 6.13 with MGLRU disabled?  

> Any ideas on how to fix all this mess?

The easy answer is to skip the test if MGLRU is in use, or if NUMA balancing is
enabled.  In a real-world scenario, if the guest is actually accessing the pages
that get PROT_NONE'd by NUMA balancing, they will be marked accessed when they're
faulted back in.  There's a window where page_idle/bitmap could be read between
making the VMA PROT_NONE and re-accessing the page from the guest, but IMO that's
one of the many flaws of NUMA balancing.

That said, one thing is quite odd.  In the failing case, *half* of the guest pages
are still idle.  That's quite insane.

Aha!  I wonder if in the failing case, the vCPU gets migrated to a pCPU on a
different node, and that causes NUMA balancing to go crazy and zap pretty much
all of guest memory.  If that's what's happening, then a better solution for the
NUMA balancing issue would be to affine the vCPU to a single NUMA node (or hard
pin it to a single pCPU?).

Powered by blists - more mailing lists