[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9e01f081-f6c5-5597-6898-a043346063b6@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2022 20:36:35 +0800
From: Like Xu <like.xu.linux@...il.com>
To: "Paolo Bonzini - Distinguished Engineer (kernel-recipes.org)"
<pbonzini@...hat.com>, Jietao Xiao <shawtao1125@...il.com>
Cc: kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
seanjc@...gle.com, vkuznets@...hat.com, wanpengli@...cent.com,
jmattson@...gle.com, joro@...tes.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM:x86: Let kvm-pit thread inherit the cgroups of the
calling process
On 2/1/2022 4:22 pm, Jietao Xiao wrote:
> Qemu-kvm will create several kernel threads for each VM including
> kvm-nx-lpage-re, vhost, and so on. Both of them properly inherit
> the cgroups of the calling process,so they are easy to attach to
> the VMM process's cgroups.
>
> Kubernetes has a feature Pod Overhead for accounting for the resources
> consumed by the Pod infrastructure(e.g overhead brought by qemu-kvm),
> and sandbox container runtime usually creates a sandbox or sandbox
> overhead cgroup for this feature. By just simply adding the runtime or
> the VMM process to the sandbox's cgroup, vhost and kvm-nx-lpage-re thread
> can successfully attach to the sanbox's cgroup but kvm-pit thread cannot.
Emm, it seems to be true for kvm-pit kthread.
> Besides, in some scenarios, kvm-pit thread can bring some CPU overhead.
> So it's better to let the kvm-pit inherit the cgroups of the calling
> userspace process.
As a side note, there is about ~3% overhead in the firecracker scenario.
>
> By queuing the attach cgroup work as the first work after the creation
> of the kvm-pit worker thread, the worker thread can successfully attach
> to the callings process's cgroups.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jietao Xiao <shawtao1125@...il.com>
> ---
> arch/x86/kvm/i8254.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/i8254.c b/arch/x86/kvm/i8254.c
> index 0b65a764ed3a..c8dcfd6a9ed4 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/i8254.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/i8254.c
> @@ -34,6 +34,7 @@
>
> #include <linux/kvm_host.h>
> #include <linux/slab.h>
> +#include <linux/cgroup.h>
>
> #include "ioapic.h"
> #include "irq.h"
> @@ -647,6 +648,32 @@ static void pit_mask_notifer(struct kvm_irq_mask_notifier *kimn, bool mask)
> kvm_pit_reset_reinject(pit);
> }
>
> +struct pit_attach_cgroups_struct {
> + struct kthread_work work;
> + struct task_struct *owner;
> + int ret;
> +};
> +
> +static void pit_attach_cgroups_work(struct kthread_work *work)
> +{
> + struct pit_attach_cgroups_struct *attach;
> +
> + attach = container_of(work, struct pit_attach_cgroups_struct, work);
> + attach->ret = cgroup_attach_task_all(attach->owner, current);
This cgroup_v1 interface is also called by the vhost_attach_cgroups_work(),
as well as the kvm_vm_worker_thread() in the KVM context.
This part of the code may be a bit redundant as the number of kthreads increases.
> +}
> +
> +
> +static int pit_attach_cgroups(struct kvm_pit *pit)
> +{
> + struct pit_attach_cgroups_struct attach;
> +
> + attach.owner = current;
> + kthread_init_work(&attach.work, pit_attach_cgroups_work);
> + kthread_queue_work(pit->worker, &attach.work);
> + kthread_flush_work(&attach.work);
> + return attach.ret;
> +}
> +
> static const struct kvm_io_device_ops pit_dev_ops = {
> .read = pit_ioport_read,
> .write = pit_ioport_write,
> @@ -683,6 +710,10 @@ struct kvm_pit *kvm_create_pit(struct kvm *kvm, u32 flags)
> if (IS_ERR(pit->worker))
> goto fail_kthread;
I wonder if we could unify the kthread_create method for both vhost and kvm-pit
so that all kthreds from kvm_arch_vm agent could share the cgroup_attach_task_all()
code base and more stuff like set_user_nice().
>
> + ret = pit_attach_cgroups(pit);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + goto fail_attach_cgroups;
> +
> kthread_init_work(&pit->expired, pit_do_work);
>
> pit->kvm = kvm;
> @@ -723,6 +754,7 @@ struct kvm_pit *kvm_create_pit(struct kvm *kvm, u32 flags)
> fail_register_pit:
> mutex_unlock(&kvm->slots_lock);
> kvm_pit_set_reinject(pit, false);
> +fail_attach_cgroups:
> kthread_destroy_worker(pit->worker);
If it fails, could we keep it at least alive and functional ?
> fail_kthread:
> kvm_free_irq_source_id(kvm, pit->irq_source_id);
Powered by blists - more mailing lists