linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] KVM: x86: Include host suspended time in steal time.

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: <ZsgdPljClmKrGIff@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2024 13:25:18 +0800
From: Chao Gao <chao.gao@...el.com>
To: Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>
CC: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, Sean Christopherson
	<seanjc@...gle.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar
	<mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Dave Hansen
	<dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, <x86@...nel.org>, "H. Peter Anvin"
	<hpa@...or.com>, <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<ssouhlal@...ebsd.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] KVM: x86: Include host suspended time in steal
 time.

On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 01:17:31PM +0900, Suleiman Souhlal wrote:
>On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 3:31 PM Chao Gao <chao.gao@...el.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 01:35:42PM +0900, Suleiman Souhlal wrote:
>> >When the host resumes from a suspend, the guest thinks any task
>> >that was running during the suspend ran for a long time, even though
>> >the effective run time was much shorter, which can end up having
>> >negative effects with scheduling. This can be particularly noticeable
>> >if the guest task was RT, as it can end up getting throttled for a
>> >long time.
>> >
>> >To mitigate this issue, we include the time that the host was
>> >suspended in steal time, which lets the guest subtract the duration from
>> >the tasks' runtime.
>> >
>> >Note that the case of a suspend happening during a VM migration
>> >might not be accounted.
>> >
>> >Signed-off-by: Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>
>> >---
>> > arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h |  1 +
>> > arch/x86/kvm/x86.c              | 11 ++++++++++-
>> > 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> >
>> >diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>> >index 4a68cb3eba78f8..728798decb6d12 100644
>> >--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>> >+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>> >@@ -898,6 +898,7 @@ struct kvm_vcpu_arch {
>> >               u8 preempted;
>> >               u64 msr_val;
>> >               u64 last_steal;
>> >+              u64 last_suspend_ns;
>> >               struct gfn_to_hva_cache cache;
>> >       } st;
>> >
>> >diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
>> >index 70219e4069874a..104f3d318026fa 100644
>> >--- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
>> >+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
>> >@@ -3654,7 +3654,7 @@ static void record_steal_time(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>> >       struct kvm_steal_time __user *st;
>> >       struct kvm_memslots *slots;
>> >       gpa_t gpa = vcpu->arch.st.msr_val & KVM_STEAL_VALID_BITS;
>> >-      u64 steal;
>> >+      u64 steal, suspend_ns;
>> >       u32 version;
>> >
>> >       if (kvm_xen_msr_enabled(vcpu->kvm)) {
>> >@@ -3735,6 +3735,14 @@ static void record_steal_time(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>> >       steal += current->sched_info.run_delay -
>> >               vcpu->arch.st.last_steal;
>> >       vcpu->arch.st.last_steal = current->sched_info.run_delay;
>> >+      /*
>> >+       * Include the time that the host was suspended in steal time.
>> >+       * Note that the case of a suspend happening during a VM migration
>> >+       * might not be accounted.
>> >+       */
>> >+      suspend_ns = kvm_total_suspend_ns();
>> >+      steal += suspend_ns - vcpu->arch.st.last_suspend_ns;
>> >+      vcpu->arch.st.last_suspend_ns = suspend_ns;
>>
>> The document in patch 3 states:
>>
>>   Time during which the vcpu is idle, will not be reported as steal time
>>
>> I'm wondering if all host suspend time should be reported as steal time,
>> or if the suspend time during a vCPU halt should be excluded.
>
>I think the statement about idle time not being reported as steal isn't
>completely accurate, so I'm not sure if it's worth the extra complexity.
>
>>
>> >       unsafe_put_user(steal, &st->steal, out);
>> >
>> >       version += 1;
>> >@@ -12280,6 +12288,7 @@ int kvm_arch_vcpu_create(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>> >
>> >       vcpu->arch.arch_capabilities = kvm_get_arch_capabilities();
>> >       vcpu->arch.msr_platform_info = MSR_PLATFORM_INFO_CPUID_FAULT;
>> >+      vcpu->arch.st.last_suspend_ns = kvm_total_suspend_ns();
>>
>> is this necessary? I doubt this because KVM doesn't capture
>> current->sched_info.run_delay here.
>
>Isn't run_delay being captured by the scheduler at all time?

I meant KVM doesn't do:

	vcpu->arch.st.last_steal = current->sched_info.run_delay;

at vCPU creation time.

>
>We need to initialize last_suspend_ns otherwise the first call to
>record_steal_time() for a VCPU would report a wrong value if
>the VCPU is started after the host has already had a suspend.

But initializing last_suspend_ns here doesn't guarantee KVM won't report a
"wrong" value because a suspend can happen after vCPU creation and before
its first VM-enter.