Re: [PATCH 9/11] Panic delay fix
On Thu, 2007-02-15 at 15:42 -0800, Zachary Amsden wrote: > So Rusty, Chris, Jeremy, any objections to killing udelay() and friends > in paravirt-ops? It would simplify things a bit. I agree. Thanks! Rusty. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 9/11] Panic delay fix
Zachary Amsden wrote: > So Rusty, Chris, Jeremy, any objections to killing udelay() and > friends in paravirt-ops? It would simplify things a bit. The only > thing we lose is a slightly faster boot time in the 100% emulated > device case. I'm ok with losing that. Even the PIT fast paths don't > use udelay, so I don't think we care for runtime performance at all. Fine with me. That always seemed a bit warty to me. J - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 9/11] Panic delay fix
Hi! > >You know it is ugly. Alan demonstrated it even hurts performance, but > >being ugly is the main problem. > > > > No argument with that. Well, we're ok with dropping it. Actually, > reverting the entire set of udelay changes now seems wise. The same >bug Good, thanks. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 9/11] Panic delay fix
Pavel Machek wrote: You know it is ugly. Alan demonstrated it even hurts performance, but being ugly is the main problem. No argument with that. Well, we're ok with dropping it. Actually, reverting the entire set of udelay changes now seems wise. The same bug that happened with i8042 can happen with any hardware device driven by the VM in passthrough mode - potentially USB or IDE CDROM or direct SCSI. Since that is per-device and not global, a global udelay disable really is broken in that case, and recompiling individual C files or modules for passthrough vs. non-passthrough is not the answer. So Rusty, Chris, Jeremy, any objections to killing udelay() and friends in paravirt-ops? It would simplify things a bit. The only thing we lose is a slightly faster boot time in the 100% emulated device case. I'm ok with losing that. Even the PIT fast paths don't use udelay, so I don't think we care for runtime performance at all. Zach - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 9/11] Panic delay fix
On 2/14/07, Rusty Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Mon, 2007-02-05 at 19:53 -0800, Zachary Amsden wrote: > Failure to use real-time delay here causes the keyboard to become demonically > possessed in the event of a kernel crash, with wildly blinking lights and > unpredictable behavior. This has resulted in several injuries. The problem is the normal one when we introduce a new concept into the kernel; there are two kinds of udelay, and they've been conflated. The most common case is a delay for real hardware devices; this can be eliminated for paravirtualization. The other cases, the tiny minority, are visible delays (keyboard leds), not knowing if they're necessary (very early boot), and async events (other CPUs coming up): ie. everything else. Just for the record - I believe that i8042 is fine as is now. The only place where real delay needs to be enforced is panic.c - it should call panic blink routine once every 1 ms. -- Dmitry - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 9/11] Panic delay fix
Hi! > >>We'd have to audit and figure out what udelays are for hardware and > >>which are not, but the evidence is that the vast majority of them are > >>for hardware and not needed for virtualization. > >> > > > >Which is irrelevant since the hardware drivers won't be used in a > >virtualised environment with any kind of performance optimisation. > > > > Which is why an audit is irrelevant for the most part. Note on the > performance below. You know it is ugly. Alan demonstrated it even hurts performance, but being ugly is the main problem. If you _need_ to avoid udelay() in some cases, introduce udelay_unless_virtualized(), and switch few users to it. Just globaly defining udelay to nop is _ugly_. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 9/11] Panic delay fix
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 13:53:08 -0800 Zachary Amsden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > IDE on several platforms has performance critical paths that use > > ndelay(400) or failing that udelay(1) > > Ok, I buy that. A 486DX / 33 Mhz processor takes 10 cycles to issue a > CALL / RET pair. This is about 300ns. Is there an issue with being too > early to issue I/O operations or too late? Too early you lose, too late you just waste clock time. > But I fail to see how such careful timing can be done at this > granularity on such hardware without well tweaked assembly code. Thats what is used most platforms use udelay(1) in fact however - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 9/11] Panic delay fix
> users I'd rather try to convince the IDE maintainer to use a > "real_hardware_mdelay()" or something here. The IDE/ATA layer has a single function which decides what non PCI probing to do so could learn to spot virtualisation easily enough. In the case of libata ISA is now obscure enough that you must load a driver to trigger ISA probes so the problem is on its way out anyway. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 9/11] Panic delay fix
On Mon, 2007-02-05 at 19:53 -0800, Zachary Amsden wrote: > Failure to use real-time delay here causes the keyboard to become demonically > possessed in the event of a kernel crash, with wildly blinking lights and > unpredictable behavior. This has resulted in several injuries. The problem is the normal one when we introduce a new concept into the kernel; there are two kinds of udelay, and they've been conflated. The most common case is a delay for real hardware devices; this can be eliminated for paravirtualization. The other cases, the tiny minority, are visible delays (keyboard leds), not knowing if they're necessary (very early boot), and async events (other CPUs coming up): ie. everything else. Is implementation of this distinction worth it? The answer IMHO is no; this is a case where simplicity wins. Firstly, most modern distributions ship kernels which have almost no drivers, and modprobe in early boot. So assuming paravirtualized drivers, we don't even experience the boot delays. Secondly, the major delay for my current kernel is IDE probing (3 out of 5 seconds of boot time!), but implementing the delay ops in lguest does *nothing* for this, because it uses "msleep()" not "mdelay()". so the current solution isn't sufficient anyway. If this is a real problem for users I'd rather try to convince the IDE maintainer to use a "real_hardware_mdelay()" or something here. Cheers! Rusty. PS. lguest doesn't implement the delay functions; I just tried implemented that now for testing. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 9/11] Panic delay fix
Alan wrote: ??? I fail to see the code bloat and also the fast paths. Which fast paths use udelay? IDE on several platforms has performance critical paths that use ndelay(400) or failing that udelay(1) Ok, I buy that. A 486DX / 33 Mhz processor takes 10 cycles to issue a CALL / RET pair. This is about 300ns. Is there an issue with being too early to issue I/O operations or too late? If it is too early, then we have lost 10 cycles of processor time per udelay, which considering the antiquity of this piece of hardware, seems acceptable. If it is too late, then there could be a real issue on older machines. But I fail to see how such careful timing can be done at this granularity on such hardware without well tweaked assembly code. A suboptimal compile output could easily throw you off by just as much, sticking a little bit of arithmetic before and after the delay. Zach - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 9/11] Panic delay fix
> ??? I fail to see the code bloat and also the fast paths. Which fast > paths use udelay? IDE on several platforms has performance critical paths that use ndelay(400) or failing that udelay(1) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 9/11] Panic delay fix
Alan wrote: We'd have to audit and figure out what udelays are for hardware and which are not, but the evidence is that the vast majority of them are for hardware and not needed for virtualization. Which is irrelevant since the hardware drivers won't be used in a virtualised environment with any kind of performance optimisation. Which is why an audit is irrelevant for the most part. Note on the performance below. Changing udelay to "hardware_udelay" or something all over the kernel would have delayed the paravirt_ops merge by an infinite amount 8) paravirt_ops has no business fiddling with udelay. Not only does it create more code bloat and stalls in relatively fast paths but its optimising the wrong thing anyway. ??? I fail to see the code bloat and also the fast paths. Which fast paths use udelay? My performance sucks -> optimise out udelay is the wrong approach. My performance sucks, switch to the virtual block driver is the right approach, and a virtual block driver won't be using udelay anyway This is not to stop performance from sucking. It doesn't. This is not an "approach". Sure, a virtual block driver won't be using udelay. Everyone else who writes hypervisors writes virtual block drivers because they don't have optimized I/O emulation for real hardware. Their performance sucks without it because they have to go switch to some other context and run a device emulator. Our doesn't. We have optimized almost every I/O device we emulate. But sitting around spinning in udelay is wasting everybody's time. There is an overhead cost to trapping out on I/O instructions. Removing the udelays that typically happen around I/O instructions causes the emulation to break even. And that is a good thing. It's certainly not required, nor is it a significant win while the kernel is running. It does cut the boot time by a lot, and you will notice an obvious difference with a much faster kernel boot simply because a lot of the hardware setup has very conservative udelays which take a lot of time during device initialization. Since boot time * number of reboots has a direct impact on the number of 9's you can claim for uptime, this is actually a large win for reliability. Zach - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 9/11] Panic delay fix
Pavel Machek wrote: On Thu 2007-02-08 07:36:12, Rusty Russell wrote: On Wed, 2007-02-07 at 12:35 +, Pavel Machek wrote: Ugh, it sounds like paravirt is more b0rken then I thought. It should always to the proper delay, then replace those udelays that are not needed on virtualized hardware with something else. Just magically defining udelay into nop is broken. We'd have to audit and figure out what udelays are for hardware and which are not, but the evidence is that the vast majority of them are for hardware and not needed for virtualization. You did not time to do the full audit, so you just did #define. Yes, of course. Since 99% of the drivers are completely irrelevant for paravirt, and 99% of the udelays are in drivers, there isn't much point to auditing a bunch of code we're not even going to be affected by. The default case for udelay is it is not needed. Changing udelay to "hardware_udelay" or something all over the kernel would have delayed the paravirt_ops merge by an infinite amount 8) And here you claim you could not do the right thing, because people would notice you are doing huge search/replace without audit, and would stop you. So you simply hidden it from them :-(. What ludicrousness is this? Hidden what? That the default case for udelay is that it is not needed? Plus... udelay() should just work under virtualization, right? You get slightly slower kernel, but still working, so the "full audit" is not as hard as you are telling me. Save the time of doing a useless full audit and making sure we didn't accidentally redefine or misspell some symbol on a bunch of architectures we aren't even set up to compile for. Just replace udelay() with hardware_udelay() on places that matter in your workload... That's inconsistent. We would be doing 2 SCSI drivers, part of the IDE code, some i386 arch code, some random places in the kernel... and now nobody else knows whether to use udelay or hardware_udelay and the code gets jumbled to the point that it is useless because there is no clear distinction between the two. It is non-trivial to come up with a list of source files that we have to actually do this to. One C-file calls a shared routine in a library, and now you've got a hidden udelay that you have absolutely no way of detecting. The right thing to do if you want to do it on a line by line basis is exactly the opposite. Remove udelay and find out what breaks. Bugs are easier to find and fix than hidden code. If I were to do it on a line by line basis, I would chose to replace udelay() with real_time_udelay() for those places that actually need it. Zach - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 9/11] Panic delay fix
> We'd have to audit and figure out what udelays are for hardware and > which are not, but the evidence is that the vast majority of them are > for hardware and not needed for virtualization. Which is irrelevant since the hardware drivers won't be used in a virtualised environment with any kind of performance optimisation. > Changing udelay to "hardware_udelay" or something all over the kernel > would have delayed the paravirt_ops merge by an infinite amount 8) paravirt_ops has no business fiddling with udelay. Not only does it create more code bloat and stalls in relatively fast paths but its optimising the wrong thing anyway. My performance sucks -> optimise out udelay is the wrong approach. My performance sucks, switch to the virtual block driver is the right approach, and a virtual block driver won't be using udelay anyway Alan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 9/11] Panic delay fix
> No, not that. But the virtual keyboard I/O gets processed and converted > to physical keyboard I/O when a keyboard is attached to a VM. The > result is that the virtual keyboard spinning out of control causes the > physical keyboard to receive the same commands, far too rapidly. > > So the keyboard blinks out of control and acts as if possessed by demons. Which is a good example of why breaking udelay is the wrong thing to do. I bet vmware keyboard emulation isn't the only problematic case. Alan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 9/11] Panic delay fix
On Thu 2007-02-08 07:36:12, Rusty Russell wrote: > On Wed, 2007-02-07 at 12:35 +, Pavel Machek wrote: > > Ugh, it sounds like paravirt is more b0rken then I thought. It should > > always to the proper delay, then replace those udelays that are not > > needed on virtualized hardware with something else. > > > > Just magically defining udelay into nop is broken. > > We'd have to audit and figure out what udelays are for hardware and > which are not, but the evidence is that the vast majority of them are > for hardware and not needed for virtualization. You did not time to do the full audit, so you just did #define. > Changing udelay to "hardware_udelay" or something all over the kernel > would have delayed the paravirt_ops merge by an infinite amount 8) And here you claim you could not do the right thing, because people would notice you are doing huge search/replace without audit, and would stop you. So you simply hidden it from them :-(. Plus... udelay() should just work under virtualization, right? You get slightly slower kernel, but still working, so the "full audit" is not as hard as you are telling me. Just replace udelay() with hardware_udelay() on places that matter in your workload... Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 9/11] Panic delay fix
On 2/8/07, Zachary Amsden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > However I am not really fond of idea of adding constructs like this > all over the code: > > #define USE_REAL_TIME_DELAY_I_REALLY_MEAN_IT_THIS_TIME_I_SWEAR > > as the time passes... Drivers should be blissfully ignorant of being > run on virtual hardware. I agree in general, but there are two uses for this ugly construct. One is for drivers and isolated sections of code which actually interact with the real world. They need real time delays. The only two examples so far are SMP coprocessor bootstrapping and blinking LEDs with a recognizable frequency. I don't expect many more to show up. I am pretty sure that using that construct inside of i8042 is wrong - the host OS should handle hardware access/delay issues. Have you verified that fixing kerne/panic.c to call i8042_panic_blink once per 1 ms (as it happens on native running kernel) does not produce the desired blinking? -- Dmitry - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 9/11] Panic delay fix
Dmitry Torokhov wrote: However I am not really fond of idea of adding constructs like this all over the code: #define USE_REAL_TIME_DELAY_I_REALLY_MEAN_IT_THIS_TIME_I_SWEAR as the time passes... Drivers should be blissfully ignorant of being run on virtual hardware. I agree in general, but there are two uses for this ugly construct. One is for drivers and isolated sections of code which actually interact with the real world. They need real time delays. The only two examples so far are SMP coprocessor bootstrapping and blinking LEDs with a recognizable frequency. I don't expect many more to show up. The other use for this construct is compiling a hardware privileged virtual domain that actually drives real hardware - you can just define this globally to override any delay masking. Zach - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 9/11] Panic delay fix
On 2/7/07, Rusty Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Wed, 2007-02-07 at 12:35 +, Pavel Machek wrote: > Ugh, it sounds like paravirt is more b0rken then I thought. It should > always to the proper delay, then replace those udelays that are not > needed on virtualized hardware with something else. > > Just magically defining udelay into nop is broken. We'd have to audit and figure out what udelays are for hardware and which are not, but the evidence is that the vast majority of them are for hardware and not needed for virtualization. Changing udelay to "hardware_udelay" or something all over the kernel would have delayed the paravirt_ops merge by an infinite amount 8) However I am not really fond of idea of adding constructs like this all over the code: #define USE_REAL_TIME_DELAY_I_REALLY_MEAN_IT_THIS_TIME_I_SWEAR as the time passes... Drivers should be blissfully ignorant of being run on virtual hardware. -- Dmitry - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 9/11] Panic delay fix
On 8 Feb 2007 14:33:21 +0100, Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 01:08:14AM -0800, Zachary Amsden wrote: > Andi Kleen wrote: > >On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 02:31:57PM -0800, Zachary Amsden wrote: > > > >>Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > >> > >>>I am confused - does i8042 talk to a virtual or real hardware here? In > >>>any case I think you need to fix kernel/panic.c to have proper > >>>(m)delay, not mess with i8042. > >>> > >>I think I need to fix both of them actually. This is virtual hardware, > >>but when you grab focus on a VM, the virtual hardware gets reflected to > >>the actual physical keyboard. Driving physical hardware that fast is bad. > >> > > > >??? > > > >Surely the physical keyboard is always handled by the host kernel? > >I hope you're not saying it's trying to access the io ports directly? > > > > No, not that. But the virtual keyboard I/O gets processed and converted > to physical keyboard I/O when a keyboard is attached to a VM. The You mean the commands to change the keyboard LEDs? > result is that the virtual keyboard spinning out of control causes the > physical keyboard to receive the same commands, far too rapidly. Hmm i would expect the host kernel keyboard driver to throttle these. I'm pretty sure the Linux one does the necessary mdelays at least. There is no throttling, we will switch leds as fast as keyboard controller will allow us (not that I consider it a bad thing). > So the keyboard blinks out of control and acts as if possessed by demons. Still sounds weird. The problem is that panic blink routine expects to be called with 1ms frequency. If mdelay in kernel/panic.c is changed to noop then i8042 will try to blink as fast as it possibly can. -- Dmitry - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 9/11] Panic delay fix
On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 01:08:14AM -0800, Zachary Amsden wrote: > Andi Kleen wrote: > >On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 02:31:57PM -0800, Zachary Amsden wrote: > > > >>Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > >> > >>>I am confused - does i8042 talk to a virtual or real hardware here? In > >>>any case I think you need to fix kernel/panic.c to have proper > >>>(m)delay, not mess with i8042. > >>> > >>I think I need to fix both of them actually. This is virtual hardware, > >>but when you grab focus on a VM, the virtual hardware gets reflected to > >>the actual physical keyboard. Driving physical hardware that fast is bad. > >> > > > >??? > > > >Surely the physical keyboard is always handled by the host kernel? > >I hope you're not saying it's trying to access the io ports directly? > > > > No, not that. But the virtual keyboard I/O gets processed and converted > to physical keyboard I/O when a keyboard is attached to a VM. The You mean the commands to change the keyboard LEDs? > result is that the virtual keyboard spinning out of control causes the > physical keyboard to receive the same commands, far too rapidly. Hmm i would expect the host kernel keyboard driver to throttle these. I'm pretty sure the Linux one does the necessary mdelays at least. > So the keyboard blinks out of control and acts as if possessed by demons. Still sounds weird. -Andi - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 9/11] Panic delay fix
Andi Kleen wrote: On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 02:31:57PM -0800, Zachary Amsden wrote: Dmitry Torokhov wrote: I am confused - does i8042 talk to a virtual or real hardware here? In any case I think you need to fix kernel/panic.c to have proper (m)delay, not mess with i8042. I think I need to fix both of them actually. This is virtual hardware, but when you grab focus on a VM, the virtual hardware gets reflected to the actual physical keyboard. Driving physical hardware that fast is bad. ??? Surely the physical keyboard is always handled by the host kernel? I hope you're not saying it's trying to access the io ports directly? No, not that. But the virtual keyboard I/O gets processed and converted to physical keyboard I/O when a keyboard is attached to a VM. The result is that the virtual keyboard spinning out of control causes the physical keyboard to receive the same commands, far too rapidly. So the keyboard blinks out of control and acts as if possessed by demons. Zach - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 9/11] Panic delay fix
On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 02:31:57PM -0800, Zachary Amsden wrote: > Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > >I am confused - does i8042 talk to a virtual or real hardware here? In > >any case I think you need to fix kernel/panic.c to have proper > >(m)delay, not mess with i8042. > > I think I need to fix both of them actually. This is virtual hardware, > but when you grab focus on a VM, the virtual hardware gets reflected to > the actual physical keyboard. Driving physical hardware that fast is bad. ??? Surely the physical keyboard is always handled by the host kernel? I hope you're not saying it's trying to access the io ports directly? -Andi - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 9/11] Panic delay fix
Dmitry Torokhov wrote: I am confused - does i8042 talk to a virtual or real hardware here? In any case I think you need to fix kernel/panic.c to have proper (m)delay, not mess with i8042. I think I need to fix both of them actually. This is virtual hardware, but when you grab focus on a VM, the virtual hardware gets reflected to the actual physical keyboard. Driving physical hardware that fast is bad. Zach - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 9/11] Panic delay fix
Rusty Russell wrote: On Wed, 2007-02-07 at 12:35 +, Pavel Machek wrote: Ugh, it sounds like paravirt is more b0rken then I thought. It should always to the proper delay, then replace those udelays that are not needed on virtualized hardware with something else. Just magically defining udelay into nop is broken. We'd have to audit and figure out what udelays are for hardware and which are not, but the evidence is that the vast majority of them are for hardware and not needed for virtualization. Changing udelay to "hardware_udelay" or something all over the kernel would have delayed the paravirt_ops merge by an infinite amount 8) Yes, so I chose the same approach used for b0rken hardware - #define REALLY_SLOW_IO before including headers. It's ugly, but it works without rewriting the entire source base. Zach - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 9/11] Panic delay fix
On Wed, 2007-02-07 at 12:35 +, Pavel Machek wrote: > Ugh, it sounds like paravirt is more b0rken then I thought. It should > always to the proper delay, then replace those udelays that are not > needed on virtualized hardware with something else. > > Just magically defining udelay into nop is broken. We'd have to audit and figure out what udelays are for hardware and which are not, but the evidence is that the vast majority of them are for hardware and not needed for virtualization. Changing udelay to "hardware_udelay" or something all over the kernel would have delayed the paravirt_ops merge by an infinite amount 8) Rusty. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 9/11] Panic delay fix
On 2/6/07, Zachary Amsden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Andi Kleen wrote: > On Mon, Feb 05, 2007 at 07:53:30PM -0800, Zachary Amsden wrote: > >> Failure to use real-time delay here causes the keyboard to become demonically >> possessed in the event of a kernel crash, with wildly blinking lights and >> unpredictable behavior. This has resulted in several injuries. >> > > There must be a reason why it wasn't default before. Has this > reason changed? > This only matters under paravirt; non-paravirt kernels and kernels running on native hardware will always behave properly. But paravirtualized kernels with fake devices have no need to udelay to accommodate slow hardware - the hardware is just virtual. The USE_REAL_TIME_DELAY define allows udelay to be specifically reverted back to being a real delay. There are only a couple cases where it matters - one is booting APs on SMP systems (there is a real delay before they come up), and one is any hardware that drives world interacting devices - such as keyboard LEDs in a panic loop. I am confused - does i8042 talk to a virtual or real hardware here? In any case I think you need to fix kernel/panic.c to have proper (m)delay, not mess with i8042. -- Dmitry - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 9/11] Panic delay fix
Hi! > > > >>Failure to use real-time delay here causes the > >>keyboard to become demonically > >>possessed in the event of a kernel crash, with wildly > >>blinking lights and > >>unpredictable behavior. This has resulted in several > >>injuries. > > > >There must be a reason why it wasn't default before. > >Has this > >reason changed? > > This only matters under paravirt; non-paravirt kernels > and kernels running on native hardware will always > behave properly. > > But paravirtualized kernels with fake devices have no > need to udelay to accommodate slow hardware - the > hardware is just virtual. The USE_REAL_TIME_DELAY > define allows udelay to be specifically reverted back to > being a real delay. There are only a couple cases where Ugh, it sounds like paravirt is more b0rken then I thought. It should always to the proper delay, then replace those udelays that are not needed on virtualized hardware with something else. Just magically defining udelay into nop is broken. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 9/11] Panic delay fix
Andi Kleen wrote: On Mon, Feb 05, 2007 at 07:53:30PM -0800, Zachary Amsden wrote: Failure to use real-time delay here causes the keyboard to become demonically possessed in the event of a kernel crash, with wildly blinking lights and unpredictable behavior. This has resulted in several injuries. There must be a reason why it wasn't default before. Has this reason changed? This only matters under paravirt; non-paravirt kernels and kernels running on native hardware will always behave properly. But paravirtualized kernels with fake devices have no need to udelay to accommodate slow hardware - the hardware is just virtual. The USE_REAL_TIME_DELAY define allows udelay to be specifically reverted back to being a real delay. There are only a couple cases where it matters - one is booting APs on SMP systems (there is a real delay before they come up), and one is any hardware that drives world interacting devices - such as keyboard LEDs in a panic loop. Zach - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 9/11] Panic delay fix
On Mon, Feb 05, 2007 at 07:53:30PM -0800, Zachary Amsden wrote: > Failure to use real-time delay here causes the keyboard to become demonically > possessed in the event of a kernel crash, with wildly blinking lights and > unpredictable behavior. This has resulted in several injuries. There must be a reason why it wasn't default before. Has this reason changed? -Andi > > Signed-off-by: Zachary Amsden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > diff -r 10fac6d484e2 drivers/input/serio/i8042.c > --- a/drivers/input/serio/i8042.c Tue Jan 30 16:44:54 2007 -0800 > +++ b/drivers/input/serio/i8042.c Tue Jan 30 16:45:00 2007 -0800 > @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@ > * under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as published > by > * the Free Software Foundation. > */ > +#define USE_REAL_TIME_DELAY > > #include > #include - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[PATCH 9/11] Panic delay fix
Failure to use real-time delay here causes the keyboard to become demonically possessed in the event of a kernel crash, with wildly blinking lights and unpredictable behavior. This has resulted in several injuries. Signed-off-by: Zachary Amsden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> diff -r 10fac6d484e2 drivers/input/serio/i8042.c --- a/drivers/input/serio/i8042.c Tue Jan 30 16:44:54 2007 -0800 +++ b/drivers/input/serio/i8042.c Tue Jan 30 16:45:00 2007 -0800 @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@ * under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as published by * the Free Software Foundation. */ +#define USE_REAL_TIME_DELAY #include #include - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
