linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kvm: x86: make lapic hrtimer pinned

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: <20160422091233.26c23c34@redhat.com>
Date:	Fri, 22 Apr 2016 09:12:33 -0400
From:	Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@...hat.com>
To:	Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>
Cc:	Yang Zhang <yang.zhang.wz@...il.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, kvm <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
	Radim Krcmar <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
	Bandan Das <bsd@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kvm: x86: make lapic hrtimer pinned

On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 07:12:51 +0800
Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com> wrote:

> 2016-04-05 20:40 GMT+08:00 Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@...hat.com>:
> > On Tue, 5 Apr 2016 14:18:01 +0800
> > Yang Zhang <yang.zhang.wz@...il.com> wrote:
> >  
> >> On 2016/4/5 5:00, Rik van Riel wrote:  
> >> > On Mon, 2016-04-04 at 16:46 -0400, Luiz Capitulino wrote:  
> >> >> When a vCPU runs on a nohz_full core, the hrtimer used by
> >> >> the lapic emulation code can be migrated to another core.
> >> >> When this happens, it's possible to observe milisecond
> >> >> latency when delivering timer IRQs to KVM guests.
> >> >>
> >> >> The huge latency is mainly due to the fact that
> >> >> apic_timer_fn() expects to run during a kvm exit. It
> >> >> sets KVM_REQ_PENDING_TIMER and let it be handled on kvm
> >> >> entry. However, if the timer fires on a different core,
> >> >> we have to wait until the next kvm exit for the guest
> >> >> to see KVM_REQ_PENDING_TIMER set.
> >> >>
> >> >> This problem became visible after commit 9642d18ee. This
> >> >> commit changed the timer migration code to always attempt
> >> >> to migrate timers away from nohz_full cores. While it's
> >> >> discussable if this is correct/desirable (I don't think
> >> >> it is), it's clear that the lapic emulation code has
> >> >> a requirement on firing the hrtimer in the same core
> >> >> where it was started. This is achieved by making the
> >> >> hrtimer pinned.  
> >> >
> >> > Given that delivering a timer to a guest seems to
> >> > involve trapping from the guest to the host, anyway,
> >> > I don't see a downside to your patch.
> >> >
> >> > If that is ever changed (eg. allowing delivery of
> >> > a timer interrupt to a VCPU without trapping to the
> >> > host), we may want to revisit this.  
> >>
> >>
> >> Posted interrupt helps in this case. Currently, KVM doesn't use PI for
> >> lapic timer is due to same affinity for lapic timer and VCPU. Now, we
> >> can change to use PI for lapic timer. The only concern is what's
> >> frequency of timer migration in upstream Linux? If it is frequently,
> >> will it bring additional cost?  
> >
> > I can't answer this questions.
> >  
> >> BTW, in what case the migration of timers during VCPU scheduling will fail?  
> >
> > For hrtimers (which is the lapic emulation case), it only succeeds if
> > the destination core has a hrtimer expiring before the hrtimer being
> > migrated.  
> 
> Interesting, did you figure out why this happen? Actually the clock
> event device will be reprogrammed if the expire time of the new
> enqueued hrtimer is earlier than the left most(earliest expire time)
> hrtimer in hrtimer rb tree.

Unless the code has changed very recently, what you describe is
what happens when queueing a hrtimer in the same core. Migrating a
hrtimer to a different core is a different case.

> 
> Regards,
> Wanpeng Li
> 
> >
> > Also, if the hrtimer callback function is already running (that is,
> > the timer fired already) it's not migrated either. But I _guess_ this
> > case doesn't affect KVM (and there's no much do about it anyways).  
>