[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <212f8b31-e470-d62c-0090-537d0d60add9@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2022 10:23:32 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: "Dr . David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@...hat.com>,
Linux MM Mailing List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/4] mm/gup: Add FOLL_INTERRUPTIBLE
On 17.06.22 03:41, Peter Xu wrote:
> We have had FAULT_FLAG_INTERRUPTIBLE but it was never applied to GUPs. One
> issue with it is that not all GUP paths are able to handle signal delivers
> besides SIGKILL.
>
> That's not ideal for the GUP users who are actually able to handle these
> cases, like KVM.
>
> KVM uses GUP extensively on faulting guest pages, during which we've got
> existing infrastructures to retry a page fault at a later time. Allowing
> the GUP to be interrupted by generic signals can make KVM related threads
> to be more responsive. For examples:
>
> (1) SIGUSR1: which QEMU/KVM uses to deliver an inter-process IPI,
> e.g. when the admin issues a vm_stop QMP command, SIGUSR1 can be
> generated to kick the vcpus out of kernel context immediately,
>
> (2) SIGINT: which can be used with interactive hypervisor users to stop a
> virtual machine with Ctrl-C without any delays/hangs,
>
> (3) SIGTRAP: which grants GDB capability even during page faults that are
> stuck for a long time.
>
> Normally hypervisor will be able to receive these signals properly, but not
> if we're stuck in a GUP for a long time for whatever reason. It happens
> easily with a stucked postcopy migration when e.g. a network temp failure
> happens, then some vcpu threads can hang death waiting for the pages. With
> the new FOLL_INTERRUPTIBLE, we can allow GUP users like KVM to selectively
> enable the ability to trap these signals.
This makes sense to me. I assume relevant callers will detect "GUP
failed" but also "well, there is a signal to handle" and cleanly back
off, correct?
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists