RCU stall with high number of KVM vcpus

[Jan Glauber]

On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 01:47:38PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 13/11/17 13:10, Jan Glauber wrote:
> > I'm seeing RCU stalls in the host with 4.14 when I run KVM on ARM64 (ThunderX2) with a high
> > number of vcpus (60). I only use one guest that does kernel compiles in
> 
> Is that only reproducible on 4.14? With or without VHE? Can you
> reproduce this on another implementation (such as ThunderX-1)?

I've reproduced it on a distro 4.13 and several vanilla 4.14 rc's and
tip/locking. VHE is enabled. I've not yet tried to reproduce it with
older kernels or ThunderX-1. I can check if it happens also on ThunderX-1.

> > a loop. After some hours (less likely the more debugging options are
> > enabled, more likely with more vcpus) RCU stalls are happening in both host & guest.
> > 
> > Both host & guest recover after some time, until the issue is triggered
> > again. 
> > 
> > Stack traces in the guest are next to useless, everything is messed up
> > there. The host seems to stave on kvm->mmu_lock spin lock, the lock_stat
> 
> Please elaborate. Messed in what way? Corrupted? The guest crashing? Or
> is that a tooling issue?

Every vcpu that oopses prints one line in parallel, so I get blocks like:
[58880.179814] [<ffff000008084b98>] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18
[58880.179834] [<ffff000008084b98>] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18
[58880.179847] [<ffff000008084b98>] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18
[58880.179873] [<ffff000008084b98>] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18
[58880.179893] [<ffff000008084b98>] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18
[58880.179911] [<ffff000008084b98>] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18
[58880.179917] [<ffff000008084b98>] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18
[58880.180288] [<ffff000008084b98>] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18
[58880.180303] [<ffff000008084b98>] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18
[58880.180336] [<ffff000008084b98>] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18
[58880.180363] [<ffff000008084b98>] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18
[58880.180384] [<ffff000008084b98>] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18
[58880.180415] [<ffff000008084b98>] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18
[58880.180461] [<ffff000008084b98>] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18

I can send the full log if you want to have a look.

> > numbers don't look good, see waittime-max:
> > 
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >                               class name    con-bounces    contentions   waittime-min   waittime-max waittime-total   waittime-avg    acq-bounces   acquisitions   holdtime-min   holdtime-max holdtime-total   holdtime-avg
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> >                 &(&kvm->mmu_lock)->rlock:      99346764       99406604           0.14  1321260806.59 710654434972.0        7148.97      154228320      225122857           0.13   917688890.60  3705916481.39          16.46
> >                 ------------------------
> >                 &(&kvm->mmu_lock)->rlock       99365598          [<ffff0000080b43b8>] kvm_handle_guest_abort+0x4c0/0x950
> >                 &(&kvm->mmu_lock)->rlock          25164          [<ffff0000080a4e30>] kvm_mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start+0x70/0xe8
> >                 &(&kvm->mmu_lock)->rlock          14934          [<ffff0000080a7eec>] kvm_mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end+0x24/0x68
> >                 &(&kvm->mmu_lock)->rlock            908          [<ffff00000810a1f0>] __cond_resched_lock+0x68/0xb8
> >                 ------------------------
> >                 &(&kvm->mmu_lock)->rlock              3          [<ffff0000080b34c8>] stage2_flush_vm+0x60/0xd8
> >                 &(&kvm->mmu_lock)->rlock       99186296          [<ffff0000080b43b8>] kvm_handle_guest_abort+0x4c0/0x950
> >                 &(&kvm->mmu_lock)->rlock         179238          [<ffff0000080a4e30>] kvm_mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start+0x70/0xe8
> >                 &(&kvm->mmu_lock)->rlock          19181          [<ffff0000080a7eec>] kvm_mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end+0x24/0x68
> > 
> > .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................
> [slots of stuff]
> 
> Well, the mmu_lock is clearly contended. Is the box in a state where you
> are swapping? There seem to be as many faults as contentions, which is a
> bit surprising...

I don't think it is swapping but need to double check.

> Also, we recently moved arm64 to qrwlocks, which may have an impact.
> Care to give this[1] a go and report the result?

Sure, I that was my first suspision but I can reproduce the issue with
and without the qrwlock patches, so these are not to blame. Also, the
starving lock is a spinlock and not a qrwlock. So maybe the spinlocks
have fairness issues too?

--Jan

> Thanks,
> 
> 	M.
> 
> [1]: https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/10/12/266
> -- 
> Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...