XCP-ng
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Groups
    • Register
    • Login

    Alert: Control Domain Memory Usage

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Solved Compute
    194 Posts 21 Posters 201.3k Views 16 Watching
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • delafD Offline
      delaf @stormi
      last edited by

      @stormi I have a server with only search extra built-in weak-updates override updates. We will see if it is better.

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
      • delafD Offline
        delaf @Danp
        last edited by

        @danp Thank you. I have downgraded one server.

        @stormi So i have :

        • one server with 4.19.19-6.0.10.1.xcpng8.1
        • one server with kmemleak kernel
        • one server with search extra built-in weak-updates override updates
        delafD 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
        • delafD Offline
          delaf @delaf
          last edited by

          @stormi @r1
          Four days later, I get:

          • one server (266) with alt-kernel: still no problem
          • one server (268) with 4.19.19-6.0.10.1.xcpng8.1: no more problem!
          • one server (272) with kmemleak kernel: no memleak detected, but the problem is present
          • one server (273) with search extra built-in weak-updates override updates: problem still present
          R 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
          • stormiS Offline
            stormi Vates 🪐 XCP-ng Team
            last edited by

            @delaf Excellent news, especially if you can replicate on another host to be sure.

            This thread is older than kernel-4.19.19-6.0.10.1.xcpng8.1 (especially in @dave's case), but it wouldn't be unlikely that several distinct memory leak causes exist.

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • R Offline
              r1 XCP-ng Team @delaf
              last edited by

              @delaf said in Alert: Control Domain Memory Usage:

              one server (268) with 4.19.19-6.0.10.1.xcpng8.1: no more problem!

              Yeah, we need to be sure that this is a stable kernel and somewhere after this, the memory leak seems to have introduced.

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • daveD Offline
                dave
                last edited by

                I currently have:

                top - 13:35:31 up 59 days, 17:11,  1 user,  load average: 0.43, 0.36, 0.34
                Tasks: 646 total,   1 running, 436 sleeping,   0 stopped,   0 zombie
                %Cpu(s):  0.8 us,  1.1 sy,  0.0 ni, 97.5 id,  0.3 wa,  0.0 hi,  0.1 si,  0.2 st
                KiB Mem : 12205936 total,   149152 free, 10627080 used,  1429704 buff/cache
                KiB Swap:  1048572 total,  1048572 free,        0 used.  1153360 avail Mem
                
                
                top - 13:35:54 up 35 days, 17:29,  1 user,  load average: 0.54, 0.73, 0.77
                Tasks: 489 total,   1 running, 324 sleeping,   0 stopped,   0 zombie
                %Cpu(s):  3.5 us,  3.4 sy,  0.0 ni, 92.7 id,  0.0 wa,  0.0 hi,  0.0 si,  0.4 st
                KiB Mem : 12207996 total,   155084 free,  9388032 used,  2664880 buff/cache
                KiB Swap:  1048572 total,  1048572 free,        0 used.  2394220 avail Mem
                
                

                both with:

                # uname -a
                Linux xs01 4.19.0+1 #1 SMP Thu Jun 11 16:18:33 CEST 2020 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
                # yum list installed | grep kernel
                kernel.x86_64                   4.19.19-6.0.11.1.xcpng8.1   @xcp-ng-updates
                
                

                shall i test something?

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • U Offline
                  umbradark
                  last edited by

                  I have a set of hosts on kernel-4.19.19-6.0.11.1.xcpng8.1 and I believe I'm hitting this as well. The OOM seems to kill openvswitch, which takes the host offline and in most cases, the VMs as well.

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • stormiS Offline
                    stormi Vates 🪐 XCP-ng Team
                    last edited by

                    So, the difference between 4.19.19-6.0.10.1.xcpng8.1 and 4.19.19-6.0.11.1.xcpng8.1 is two patches meant to reduce the performance overhead of the CROSSTalk vulnerability mitigations.

                    So, assuming from @delaf's test results that one of those patches introduced the memory leak, I have built

                    Now here are the tests that you can do:

                    • Reproduce @delaf's findings by running kernel-4.19.19-6.0.10.1.xcpng8.1: no more memory leaks?
                    • Test this kernel I built with patch 53 disabled: https://nextcloud.vates.fr/index.php/s/YXWCSEwo8SWkfAZ
                    • Test this kernel I built with patch 62 disabled: https://nextcloud.vates.fr/index.php/s/arj5YfdrkjMKbBy

                    If one of the patches is the cause of the memory leak, then one of the last two should still cause a memory leak and the other one not.

                    delafD 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • delafD Offline
                      delaf @stormi
                      last edited by delaf

                      @stormi I have installed the two kernels

                      272 ~]# yum list installed kernel | grep kernel
                      kernel.x86_64                   4.19.19-6.0.11.1.0.1.patch53disabled.xcpng8.1
                      
                      273 ~]# yum list installed kernel | grep kernel
                      kernel.x86_64                   4.19.19-6.0.11.1.0.1.patch62disabled.xcpng8.1
                      

                      I have removed the modification in /etc/modprobe.d/dist.conf on server 273.

                      We have to wait a little bit now 😉

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                      • stormiS Offline
                        stormi Vates 🪐 XCP-ng Team
                        last edited by

                        FYI, the kernel with kmemleak support did detect something for a user who has a support ticket related to dom0 memory usage.

                        delafD 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • delafD Offline
                          delaf @stormi
                          last edited by

                          @stormi For the kernel-4.19.19-6.0.10.1.xcpng8.1 test, i'm not sure it solve the problem because I get a small memory increase. We have to wait a bit more 😕

                          delafD 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                          • delafD Offline
                            delaf @delaf
                            last edited by olivierlambert

                            @stormi

                            • server 266 with alt-kernel: still no problem.
                              Screen Shot 2020-12-02 at 10.08.47.png

                            • server 268 with 4.19.19-6.0.10.1.xcpng8.1: the problem has begun some days ago after some stable days.
                              Screen Shot 2020-12-02 at 10.03.57.png

                            • server 272 with 4.19.19-6.0.11.1.0.1.patch53disabled.xcpng8.1:
                              Screen Shot 2020-12-02 at 10.05.47.png )

                            • server 273 with 4.19.19-6.0.11.1.0.1.patch62disabled.xcpng8.1:
                              Screen Shot 2020-12-02 at 10.05.50.png

                            It seems that 4.19.19-6.0.11.1.0.1.patch62disabled.xcpng8.1 is more stable than 4.19.19-6.0.11.1.0.1.patch53disabled.xcpng8.1. But it is a but early to be sure.

                            delafD 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                            • delafD Offline
                              delaf @delaf
                              last edited by delaf

                              @stormi @r1 server 273 with 4.19.19-6.0.11.1.0.1.patch62disabled.xcpng8.1 is still stable and 272 has the memory problem.

                              • 272
                                Screen Shot 2020-12-15 at 14.50.31.png

                              • 273
                                Screen Shot 2020-12-15 at 14.50.40.png

                              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • stormiS Offline
                                stormi Vates 🪐 XCP-ng Team
                                last edited by

                                Thanks. It looks like I'm doomed to see seemingly contradictory results for every kernel-related issue (this one, and an other one regarding network performance): you don't have any leaks without patch 62, but you had leaks with kernel 4.19.19-6.0.10.1.xcpng8.1 which doesn't have that patch either. So it's hard to conclude anything 😕

                                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • R Offline
                                  rblvlvl
                                  last edited by rblvlvl

                                  Hey Guys,

                                  we are facing the same issue with xcp 8.1.
                                  We can't figure out what uses all this memory (8GB) or how to reduce it. Restarting the Toolstack did nothing and we can't afford a downtime because everything runs in production. Similar systems with same configurations don't show such a behavior.

                                  I can provide you with some output from our system, maybe you can see something or help us finding a solution.

                                  free -m

                                                total        used        free      shared  buff/cache   available
                                  Mem:           7912        7595          82          33         234          62
                                  Swap:          1023         216         807
                                  

                                  xl top

                                        NAME  STATE   CPU(sec) CPU(%)     MEM(k) MEM(%)  MAXMEM(k) MAXMEM(%) VCPUS NETS NETTX(k) NETRX(k) VBDS   VBD_OO    VBD_RD     VBD_WR   VBD_RSECT   VBD_WSECT SSID
                                    Domain-0 -----r    7308446   52.1    8388608    3.1    8388608       3.1    16    0        0        0    0        0         0          0           0           0    0
                                  

                                  xe vm-param-list uuid | grep memory

                                                           memory-actual ( RO): 8589934592
                                                           memory-target ( RO): <unknown>
                                                         memory-overhead ( RO): 84934656
                                                       memory-static-max ( RW): 8589934592
                                                      memory-dynamic-max ( RW): 8589934592
                                                      memory-dynamic-min ( RW): 8589934592
                                                       memory-static-min ( RW): 8589934592
                                                                  memory (MRO): <not in database>
                                  

                                  lsmod and grub.cfg
                                  lsmod.txt
                                  grub-cgf.txt

                                  top output
                                  Bildschirmfoto 2020-12-30 um 08.55.32.png

                                  Tell me if you need more information or if you have any idea. Thanks.

                                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                  • olivierlambertO Offline
                                    olivierlambert Vates 🪐 Co-Founder CEO
                                    last edited by

                                    We need more details on the host.

                                    1. Hardware detail (NICs, server model)
                                    2. If all your hardware is fully BIOS/firmware up to date
                                    3. The kind of storage used (iSCSI, FCoE, NFS?)

                                    So far, we couldn't find a real common thing between people, and that's make hard to find the root cause.

                                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                    • R Offline
                                      rblvlvl
                                      last edited by

                                      @olivierlambert

                                      It is a Dell PowerEdge R440 Version 2.6.3 with an LACP Bond and we use an NFS Storage.

                                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                      • olivierlambertO Offline
                                        olivierlambert Vates 🪐 Co-Founder CEO
                                        last edited by

                                        That doesn't answer all my questions 😉

                                        R 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                        • R Offline
                                          rblvlvl @olivierlambert
                                          last edited by

                                          @olivierlambert

                                          NIC:
                                          Intel(R) Ethernet 10G 2P X550-t Adapter

                                          driver: ixgbe
                                          version: 5.5.2
                                          firmware-version: 0x80000f32, 19.5.12
                                          

                                          RAID Controller:

                                          Product Name    : PERC H740P Adapter 
                                          Serial No       : 04B00V9
                                          FW Package Build: 50.9.4-3025
                                          
                                                              Mfg. Data
                                                          ================
                                          Mfg. Date       : 04/18/20
                                          Rework Date     : 04/18/20
                                          Revision No     : A03
                                          Battery FRU     : N/A
                                          
                                                          Image Versions in Flash:
                                                          ================
                                          Boot Block Version : 7.02.00.00-0021
                                          BIOS Version       : 7.09.02.1_0x07090301
                                          FW Version         : 5.093.00-2856
                                          NVDATA Version     : 5.0900.06-0034
                                          

                                          I know our hardware is not fully up to date, but for an update we need a timeframe, which can not be arranged that quickly.
                                          Maybe someone knows a temporary fix to reduce the usage of the dom0 memory until the updates can be made.

                                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                          • olivierlambertO Offline
                                            olivierlambert Vates 🪐 Co-Founder CEO
                                            last edited by

                                            Thanks.

                                            If it's a kernel leak, there's nothing to do in user space.

                                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                            • First post
                                              Last post