mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@suse.com>
To: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
Cc: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>,
	x86@kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@do-not-panic.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>,
	Joerg Roedel <jroedel@suse.de>,
	david.vrabel@citrix.com, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>,
	xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>, Olaf Hering <ohering@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen: privcmd: schedule() after private hypercall when non CONFIG_PREEMPT
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 22:51:01 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20141128215101.GW25677@wotan.suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <54777277.5040401@citrix.com>

On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 06:50:31PM +0000, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 27/11/14 18:36, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 07:36:31AM +0100, Juergen Gross wrote:
> >> On 11/26/2014 11:26 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> >>> From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@suse.com>
> >>>
> >>> Some folks had reported that some xen hypercalls take a long time
> >>> to complete when issued from the userspace private ioctl mechanism,
> >>> this can happen for instance with some hypercalls that have many
> >>> sub-operations, this can happen for instance on hypercalls that use
> >>> multi-call feature whereby Xen lets one hypercall batch out a series
> >>> of other hypercalls on the hypervisor. At times such hypercalls can
> >>> even end up triggering the TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE hanger check (default
> >>> 120 seconds), this a non-issue issue on preemptible kernels though as
> >>> the kernel may deschedule such long running tasks. Xen for instance
> >>> supports multicalls to be preempted as well, this is what Xen calls
> >>> continuation (see xen commit 42217cbc5b which introduced this [0]).
> >>> On systems without CONFIG_PREEMPT though -- a kernel with voluntary
> >>> or no preemption -- a long running hypercall will not be descheduled
> >>> until the hypercall is complete and the ioctl returns to user space.
> >>>
> >>> To help with this David had originally implemented support for use
> >>> of preempt_schedule_irq() [1] for non CONFIG_PREEMPT kernels. This
> >>> solution never went upstream though and upon review to help refactor
> >>> this I've concluded that usage of preempt_schedule_irq() would be
> >>> a bit abussive of existing APIs -- for a few reasons:
> >>>
> >>> 0) we want to avoid spreading its use on non CONFIG_PREEMPT kernels
> >>>
> >>> 1) we want try to consider solutions that might work for other
> >>>     hypervisors for this same problem, and identify it its an issue
> >>>     even present on other hypervisors or if this is a self
> >>>     inflicted architectural issue caused by use of multicalls
> >>>
> >>> 2) there is no documentation or profiling of the exact hypercalls
> >>>     that were causing these issues, nor do we have any context
> >>>     to help evaluate this any further
> >>>
> >>> I at least checked with kvm folks and it seems hypercall preemption
> >>> is not needed there. We can survey other hypervisors...
> >>>
> >>> If 'something like preemption' is needed then CONFIG_PREEMPT
> >>> should just be enabled and encouraged, it seems we want to
> >>> encourage CONFIG_PREEMPT on xen, specially when multicalls are
> >>> used. In the meantime this tries to address a solution to help
> >>> xen on non CONFIG_PREEMPT kernels.
> >>>
> >>> One option tested and evaluated was to put private hypercalls in
> >>> process context, however this would introduce complexities such
> >>> originating hypercalls from different contexts. Current xen
> >>> hypercall callback handlers would need to be changed per architecture,
> >>> for instance, we'd also incur the cost of switching states from
> >>> user / kernel (this cost is also present if preempt_schedule_irq()
> >>> is used). There may be other issues which could be introduced with
> >>> this strategy as well. The simplest *shared* alternative is instead
> >>> to just explicitly schedule() at the end of a private hypercall on non
> >>> preempt kernels. This forces our private hypercall call mechanism
> >>> to try to be fair only on non CONFIG_PREEMPT kernels at the cost of
> >>> more context switch but keeps the private hypercall context intact.
> >>>
> >>> [0] http://xenbits.xen.org/gitweb/?p=xen.git;a=commitdiff;h=42217cbc5b3e84b8c145d8cfb62dd5de0134b9e8;hp=3a0b9c57d5c9e82c55dd967c84dd06cb43c49ee9
> >>> [1] http://ftp.suse.com/pub/people/mcgrof/xen-preempt-hypercalls/0001-x86-xen-allow-privcmd-hypercalls-to-be-preempted.patch
> >>>
> >>> Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>
> >>> Cc: Joerg Roedel <jroedel@suse.de>
> >>> Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
> >>> Cc: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>
> >>> Cc: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
> >>> Cc: Juergen Gross <JGross@suse.com>
> >>> Cc: Olaf Hering <ohering@suse.de>
> >>> Cc: David Vrabel <david.vrabel@citrix.com>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@suse.com>
> >>> ---
> >>>   drivers/xen/privcmd.c | 3 +++
> >>>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/xen/privcmd.c b/drivers/xen/privcmd.c
> >>> index 569a13b..e29edba 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/xen/privcmd.c
> >>> +++ b/drivers/xen/privcmd.c
> >>> @@ -60,6 +60,9 @@ static long privcmd_ioctl_hypercall(void __user *udata)
> >>>   			   hypercall.arg[0], hypercall.arg[1],
> >>>   			   hypercall.arg[2], hypercall.arg[3],
> >>>   			   hypercall.arg[4]);
> >>> +#ifndef CONFIG_PREEMPT
> >>> +	schedule();
> >>> +#endif
> >>>
> >>>   	return ret;
> >>>   }
> >>>
> >> Sorry, I don't think this will solve anything. You're calling schedule()
> >> right after the long running hypercall just nanoseconds before returning
> >> to the user.
> > Yeah, well that is what [1] tried as well only it tried using
> > preempt_schedule_irq() on the hypercall callback...
> >
> >> I suppose you were mislead by the "int 0x82" in [0]. This is the
> >> hypercall from the kernel into the hypervisor, e.g. inside of
> >> privcmd_call().
> > Nope, you have to consider what was done in [1], I was trying to
> > do something similar but less complex that didn't involve mucking
> > with the callbacks but also not abusing APIs.
> >
> > I'm afraid we don't have much leg room.
> 
> XenServer uses
> 
> https://github.com/xenserver/linux-3.x.pg/blob/master/master/0001-x86-xen-allow-privcmd-hypercalls-to-be-preempted.patch
> 
> to deal with these issues.  That patch is based on 3.10.
> 
> I can remember whether this has been submitted upstream before (and
> there were outstanding issues), or whether it fell at an inconvenient
> time with our development cycles.
> 
> David: do you recall?

This was precicely the patch I reviewed in [1].

  Luis

  parent reply	other threads:[~2014-11-28 21:51 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-11-26 22:26 Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-11-27  6:36 ` Juergen Gross
2014-11-27 18:36   ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-11-27 18:46     ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-11-27 18:50     ` [Xen-devel] " Andrew Cooper
2014-11-28  4:49       ` Juergen Gross
2014-12-01 11:01         ` David Vrabel
2014-12-01 13:32           ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-12-01 14:42             ` Juergen Gross
2014-12-01 15:50               ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-11-28 21:51       ` Luis R. Rodriguez [this message]
2014-12-01 11:11     ` David Vrabel
2014-12-01 15:05       ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-12-01 15:18         ` David Vrabel
2014-12-01 15:44           ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-12-01 15:54             ` David Vrabel
2014-12-01 16:19               ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-12-01 17:07                 ` Juergen Gross
2014-12-01 17:52                   ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-12-01 18:16                 ` [Xen-devel] " David Vrabel
2014-12-01 22:36                   ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-12-02 11:11                     ` David Vrabel
2014-12-03  2:28                       ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-12-03  4:37                         ` Juergen Gross
2014-12-03 19:39                           ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-12-05 16:20                             ` Luis R. Rodriguez

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20141128215101.GW25677@wotan.suse.de \
    --to=mcgrof@suse.com \
    --cc=JBeulich@suse.com \
    --cc=andrew.cooper3@citrix.com \
    --cc=boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com \
    --cc=bp@suse.de \
    --cc=david.vrabel@citrix.com \
    --cc=dbueso@suse.de \
    --cc=jgross@suse.com \
    --cc=jroedel@suse.de \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mcgrof@do-not-panic.com \
    --cc=ohering@suse.de \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    --cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®