• Unraid process does not respect isolcpus (and unexpected appearance of kswapd)


    testdasi
    • Minor

    Tested on 6.9.0-beta25

     

    On a rsync operation between disk1 and a cache pool (my 3rd pool i.e. using 6.9.0 multi-pool feature), I noticed strange load on core 40 and 56 so investigate.

     

    1. Check top 10 processes CPU usage

    ps aux | sort -nrk 3,3 | head -n 10

    Output (removed irrelevant entries - I checked each of the other entries and none uses core 40 and 56)

    ...
    root      11912 15.6  0.0      0     0 ?        S    12:06  34:10 [unraidd1]
    root       1804  5.5  0.0      0     0 ?        S    12:06  12:15 [kswapd2]
    ...

     

    2. Check which core unraidd1 uses

     ps -aeF | grep unraid

    Output (i.e. unraidd1 uses core 56)

    root      11911      2  0     0     0  36 12:06 ?        00:00:00 [unraidd0]
    root      11912      2 15     0     0  56 12:06 ?        00:35:49 [unraidd1]

     

    3. Check which core kswapd2 uses

    ps -aeF | grep kswap

    Output (i.e. kswapd2 uses core 40)

    root       1803      2  0     0     0  32 12:06 ?        00:02:10 [kswapd0]
    root       1804      2  5     0     0  40 12:06 ?        00:12:55 [kswapd2]

     

    4. append in syslinux

    append isolcpus=32-63 nohz_full=32-63 rcu_nocs=32-63 kvm_amd.avic=1 mitigations=off pcie_acs_override=downstream,multifunction 

     

     

    Given the name unraidd1, I'm guessing it's a process spawned by Unraid. And d1 is perhaps disk1 and the sync operation is from disk1.

    So conclusion is unraid spawns a process without considering isolcpus.

     

    kswapd0 manages swap space so I'm assuming kswapd2 is the same?

    Thing is I don't use the swap memory plugin or turn on any kind of virtual memory / swap space settings so I'm a little surprised to see it putting load on the CPU + I only use 67GB out of 96GB RAM so I don't see why swap space is triggered.

     

    The load on both processes are not that high but high enough to cause some lag while gaming.

     

     

     

    (PS: this is unrelated to the btrfs not respecting isolcpus bug I raised previously)




    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    There are no comments to display.



    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Status Definitions

     

    Open = Under consideration.

     

    Solved = The issue has been resolved.

     

    Solved version = The issue has been resolved in the indicated release version.

     

    Closed = Feedback or opinion better posted on our forum for discussion. Also for reports we cannot reproduce or need more information. In this case just add a comment and we will review it again.

     

    Retest = Please retest in latest release.


    Priority Definitions

     

    Minor = Something not working correctly.

     

    Urgent = Server crash, data loss, or other showstopper.

     

    Annoyance = Doesn't affect functionality but should be fixed.

     

    Other = Announcement or other non-issue.