Message-ID: <20231215181014.GB2853@maniforge>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2023 12:10:14 -0600
From: David Vernet <void@...ifault.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc: "Vineeth Pillai (Google)" <vineeth@...byteword.org>,
	Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
	"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
	Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
	Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
	Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...gle.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Josh Don <joshdon@...gle.com>,
	Barret Rhoden <brho@...gle.com>, David Dunn <daviddunn@...gle.com>,
	julia.lawall@...ia.fr, himadrispandya@...il.com,
	jean-pierre.lozi@...ia.fr, ast@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/8] Dynamic vcpu priority management in kvm

On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 08:38:47AM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> +sched_ext folks

Thanks for the cc.

> 
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2023, Vineeth Pillai (Google) wrote:
> > Double scheduling is a concern with virtualization hosts where the host
> > schedules vcpus without knowing whats run by the vcpu and guest schedules
> > tasks without knowing where the vcpu is physically running. This causes
> > issues related to latencies, power consumption, resource utilization
> > etc. An ideal solution would be to have a cooperative scheduling
> > framework where the guest and host shares scheduling related information
> > and makes an educated scheduling decision to optimally handle the
> > workloads. As a first step, we are taking a stab at reducing latencies
> > for latency sensitive workloads in the guest.
> > 
> > This series of patches aims to implement a framework for dynamically
> > managing the priority of vcpu threads based on the needs of the workload
> > running on the vcpu. Latency sensitive workloads (nmi, irq, softirq,
> > critcal sections, RT tasks etc) will get a boost from the host so as to
> > minimize the latency.
> > 
> > The host can proactively boost the vcpu threads when it has enough
> > information about what is going to run on the vcpu - fo eg: injecting
> > interrupts. For rest of the case, guest can request boost if the vcpu is
> > not already boosted. The guest can subsequently request unboost after
> > the latency sensitive workloads completes. Guest can also request a
> > boost if needed.
> > 
> > A shared memory region is used to communicate the scheduling information.
> > Guest shares its needs for priority boosting and host shares the boosting
> > status of the vcpu. Guest sets a flag when it needs a boost and continues
> > running. Host reads this on next VMEXIT and boosts the vcpu thread. For
> > unboosting, it is done synchronously so that host workloads can fairly
> > compete with guests when guest is not running any latency sensitive
> > workload.
> 
> Big thumbs down on my end.  Nothing in this RFC explains why this should be done
> in KVM.  In general, I am very opposed to putting policy of any kind into KVM,
> and this puts a _lot_ of unmaintainable policy into KVM by deciding when to
> start/stop boosting a vCPU.

I have to agree, not least of which is because in addition to imposing a
severe maintenance tax, these policies are far from exhaustive in terms
of what you may want to do for cooperative paravirt scheduling. I think
something like sched_ext would give you the best of all worlds: no
maintenance burden on the KVM maintainers, more options for implementing
various types of policies, performant, safe to run on the host, no need
to reboot when trying a new policy, etc. More on this below.

> Concretely, boosting vCPUs for most events is far too coarse grained.  E.g. boosting
> a vCPU that is running a low priority workload just because the vCPU triggered
> an NMI due to PMU counter overflow doesn't make sense.  Ditto for if a guest's
> hrtimer expires on a vCPU running a low priority workload.
>
> And as evidenced by patch 8/8, boosting vCPUs based on when an event is _pending_
> is not maintainable.  As hardware virtualizes more and more functionality, KVM's
> visilibity into the guest effectively decreases, e.g. Intel and AMD both support
> with IPI virtualization.
> 
> Boosting the target of a PV spinlock kick is similarly flawed.  In that case, KVM
> only gets involved _after_ there is a problem, i.e. after a lock is contended so
> heavily that a vCPU stops spinning and instead decided to HLT.  It's not hard to
> imagine scenarios where a guest would want to communicate to the host that it's
> acquiring a spinlock for a latency sensitive path and so shouldn't be scheduled
> out.  And of course that's predicated on the assumption that all vCPUs are subject
> to CPU overcommit.
> 
> Initiating a boost from the host is also flawed in the sense that it relies on
> the guest to be on the same page as to when it should stop boosting.  E.g. if
> KVM boosts a vCPU because an IRQ is pending, but the guest doesn't want to boost
> IRQs on that vCPU and thus doesn't stop boosting at the end of the IRQ handler,
> then the vCPU could end up being boosted long after its done with the IRQ.
> 
> Throw nested virtualization into the mix and then all of this becomes nigh
> impossible to sort out in KVM.  E.g. if an L1 vCPU is a running an L2 vCPU, i.e.
> a nested guest, and L2 is spamming interrupts for whatever reason, KVM will end
> repeatedly boosting the L1 vCPU regardless of the priority of the L2 workload.
> 
> For things that aren't clearly in KVM's domain, I don't think we should implement
> KVM-specific functionality until every other option has been tried (and failed).
> I don't see any reason why KVM needs to get involved in scheduling, beyond maybe
> providing *input* regarding event injection, emphasis on *input* because KVM
> providing information to userspace or some other entity is wildly different than
> KVM making scheduling decisions based on that information.
> 
> Pushing the scheduling policies to host userspace would allow for far more control
> and flexibility.  E.g. a heavily paravirtualized environment where host userspace
> knows *exactly* what workloads are being run could have wildly different policies
> than an environment where the guest is a fairly vanilla Linux VM that has received
> a small amount of enlightment.
> 
> Lastly, if the concern/argument is that userspace doesn't have the right knobs
> to (quickly) boost vCPU tasks, then the proposed sched_ext functionality seems
> tailor made for the problems you are trying to solve.
>
> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20231111024835.2164816-1-tj%40kernel.org

I very much agree. There are some features missing from BPF that we'd
need to add to enable this, but they're on the roadmap, and I don't
think they'd be especially difficult to implement.

The main building block that I was considering is a new kptr [0] and set
of kfuncs [1] that would allow a BPF program to have one or more R/W
shared memory regions with a guest. This could enable a wide swath of
BPF paravirt use cases that are not limited to scheduling, but in terms
of sched_ext, the BPF scheduler could communicate with the guest
scheduler over this shared memory region in whatever manner was required
for that use case.

[0]: https://lwn.net/Articles/900749/
[1]: https://lwn.net/Articles/856005/

For example, the guest could communicate scheduling intention such as:

- "Don't preempt me and/or boost me (because I'm holding a spinlock, in an
  NMI region, running some low-latency task, etc)".
- "VCPU x prefers to be on a P core", and then later, "Now it prefers an
  E core". Note that this doesn't require pinning or anything like that.
  It's just the VCPU requesting some best-effort placement, and allowing
  that policy to change dynamically depending on what the guest is
  doing.
- "Try to give these VCPUs their own fully idle cores if possible, but
  these other VCPUs should ideally be run as hypertwins as they're
  expected to have good cache locality", etc.

In general, some of these policies might be silly and not work well,
others might work very well for some workloads / architectures and not
as well on others, etc. sched_ext would make it easy to try things out
and see what works well, without having to worry about rebooting or
crashing the host, and ultimately without having to implement and
maintain some scheduling policy directly in KVM. As Sean said, the host
knows exactly what workloads are being run and could have very targeted
and bespoke policies that wouldn't be appropriate for a vanilla Linux
VM.

Finally, while it's not necessarily related to paravirt scheduling
specifically, I think it's maybe worth mentioning that sched_ext would
have allowed us to implement a core-sched-like policy when L1TF first
hit us. It was inevitable that we'd need a core-sched policy build into
the core kernel as well, but we could have used sched_ext as a solution
until core sched was merged. Tejun implemented something similar in an
example scheduler where only tasks in the same cgroup are ever allowed
to run as hypertwins [3]. The point is, you can do basically anything
you want with sched_ext. For paravirt, I think there are a ton of
interesting possibilities, and I think those possibilities are better
explored and implemented with sched_ext rather than implementing
policies directly in KVM.

[3]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20231111024835.2164816-27-tj@kernel.org/

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists