linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V3 RFC 2/2] kvm: Handle yield_to failure return code for potential undercommit case

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 30 Nov 2012 10:34:36 +0530
From:	Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>
CC:	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Srikar <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"Nikunj A. Dadhania" <nikunj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, Jiannan Ouyang <ouyang@...pitt.edu>,
	Chegu Vinod <chegu_vinod@...com>,
	"Andrew M. Theurer" <habanero@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <srivatsa.vaddagiri@...il.com>,
	Andrew Jones <drjones@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 RFC 2/2] kvm: Handle yield_to failure return code for
 potential undercommit case

On 11/29/2012 05:46 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 10:40:56AM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
>> On 11/28/2012 06:42 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>>>
>>> Don't understand the reasoning behind why 3 is a good choice.
>>
>> Here is where I came from. (explaining from scratch for
>> completeness, forgive me :))
>> In moderate overcommits, we can falsely exit from ple handler even when
>> we have preempted task of same VM waiting on other cpus. To reduce this
>> problem, we try few times before exiting.
>> The problem boils down to:
>> what is the probability that we exit ple handler even when we have more
>> than 1 task in other cpus. Theoretical worst case should be around 1.5x
>> overcommit (As also pointed by Andrew Theurer). [But practical
>> worstcase may be around 2x,3x overcommits as indicated by the results
>> for the patch series]
>>
>> So if p is the probability of finding rq length one on a particular cpu,
>> and if we do n tries, then probability of exiting ple handler is:
>>
>>   p^(n+1) [ because we would have come across one source with rq length
>> 1 and n target cpu rqs  with length 1 ]
>>
>> so
>> num tries:         probability of aborting ple handler (1.5x overcommit)
>>   1                 1/4
>>   2                 1/8
>>   3                 1/16
>>
>> We can increase this probability with more tries, but the problem is
>> the overhead.
> IIRC Avi (again) had an idea to track vcpu preemption. When vcpu thread
> is preempted we do kvm->preempted_vcpus++, when it runs again we do
> kvm->preempted_vcpus--. PLE handler can try harder if kvm->preempted_vcpus
> is big or do not try at all if it is zero.

Thanks for the reply Gleb.

Yes.. It was on my next TODO as you know and it make sense to weigh all 
these approaches (undercommit patches/throttled yield/preempt
notifier/pvspinlock and their combination) to good extent before going 
further. I am happy if these patches are now in 'good shape to compare'
state. (same reason I had posted dynamic PLE appaoch too).




--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/