linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC V6 0/11] Paravirtualized ticketlocks

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]

Message-ID: <20120411012938.GC7245@amt.cnet>
Date:	Tue, 10 Apr 2012 22:29:38 -0300
From:	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
	KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Xen Devel <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
	Virtualization <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@...rix.com>,
	Stephan Diestelhorst <stephan.diestelhorst@....com>,
	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com>,
	Attilio Rao <attilio.rao@...rix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC V6 0/11] Paravirtualized ticketlocks

On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 12:07:58AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Mar 2012, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> 
> > What is the current status of this patchset?  I haven't looked at it too
> > closely because I have been focused on 3.4 up until now...
> 
> The real question is whether these heuristics are the correct approach
> or not.
> 
> If I look at it from the non virtualized kernel side then this is ass
> backwards. We know already that we are holding a spinlock which might
> cause other (v)cpus going into eternal spin. The non virtualized
> kernel solves this by disabling preemption and therefor getting out of
> the critical section as fast as possible,
> 
> The virtualization problem reminds me a lot of the problem which RT
> kernels are observing where non raw spinlocks are turned into
> "sleeping spinlocks" and therefor can cause throughput issues for non
> RT workloads.
> 
> Though the virtualized situation is even worse. Any preempted guest
> section which holds a spinlock is prone to cause unbound delays.
> 
> The paravirt ticketlock solution can only mitigate the problem, but
> not solve it. With massive overcommit there is always a way to trigger
> worst case scenarious unless you are educating the scheduler to cope
> with that.
> 
> So if we need to fiddle with the scheduler and frankly that's the only
> way to get a real gain (the numbers, which are achieved by this
> patches, are not that impressive) then the question arises whether we
> should turn the whole thing around.
> 
> I know that Peter is going to go berserk on me, but if we are running
> a paravirt guest then it's simple to provide a mechanism which allows
> the host (aka hypervisor) to check that in the guest just by looking
> at some global state.
> 
> So if a guest exits due to an external event it's easy to inspect the
> state of that guest and avoid to schedule away when it was interrupted
> in a spinlock held section. That guest/host shared state needs to be
> modified to indicate the guest to invoke an exit when the last nested
> lock has been released.

Remember that the host is scheduling other processes than vcpus of guests. 

The case where a higher priority task (whatever that task is) interrupts
a vcpu which holds a spinlock should be frequent, in a overcommit
scenario. Whenever that is the case, other vcpus _must_ be able to stop
spinning. 

Now extrapolate that to guests with large number of vcpus. There is no
replacement for sleep-in-hypervisor-instead-of-spin.

> Of course this needs to be time bound, so a rogue guest cannot
> monopolize the cpu forever, but that's the least to worry about
> problem simply because a guest which does not get out of a spinlocked
> region within a certain amount of time is borked and elegible to
> killing anyway.
> 
> Thoughts ?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 	tglx
--
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/