On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 06:50:31PM +0000, Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 27/11/14 18:36, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 07:36:31AM +0100, Juergen Gross wrote: > >> On 11/26/2014 11:26 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > >>> From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcg...@suse.com> > >>> > >>> Some folks had reported that some xen hypercalls take a long time > >>> to complete when issued from the userspace private ioctl mechanism, > >>> this can happen for instance with some hypercalls that have many > >>> sub-operations, this can happen for instance on hypercalls that use > >>> multi-call feature whereby Xen lets one hypercall batch out a series > >>> of other hypercalls on the hypervisor. At times such hypercalls can > >>> even end up triggering the TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE hanger check (default > >>> 120 seconds), this a non-issue issue on preemptible kernels though as > >>> the kernel may deschedule such long running tasks. Xen for instance > >>> supports multicalls to be preempted as well, this is what Xen calls > >>> continuation (see xen commit 42217cbc5b which introduced this [0]). > >>> On systems without CONFIG_PREEMPT though -- a kernel with voluntary > >>> or no preemption -- a long running hypercall will not be descheduled > >>> until the hypercall is complete and the ioctl returns to user space. > >>> > >>> To help with this David had originally implemented support for use > >>> of preempt_schedule_irq() [1] for non CONFIG_PREEMPT kernels. This > >>> solution never went upstream though and upon review to help refactor > >>> this I've concluded that usage of preempt_schedule_irq() would be > >>> a bit abussive of existing APIs -- for a few reasons: > >>> > >>> 0) we want to avoid spreading its use on non CONFIG_PREEMPT kernels > >>> > >>> 1) we want try to consider solutions that might work for other > >>> hypervisors for this same problem, and identify it its an issue > >>> even present on other hypervisors or if this is a self > >>> inflicted architectural issue caused by use of multicalls > >>> > >>> 2) there is no documentation or profiling of the exact hypercalls > >>> that were causing these issues, nor do we have any context > >>> to help evaluate this any further > >>> > >>> I at least checked with kvm folks and it seems hypercall preemption > >>> is not needed there. We can survey other hypervisors... > >>> > >>> If 'something like preemption' is needed then CONFIG_PREEMPT > >>> should just be enabled and encouraged, it seems we want to > >>> encourage CONFIG_PREEMPT on xen, specially when multicalls are > >>> used. In the meantime this tries to address a solution to help > >>> xen on non CONFIG_PREEMPT kernels. > >>> > >>> One option tested and evaluated was to put private hypercalls in > >>> process context, however this would introduce complexities such > >>> originating hypercalls from different contexts. Current xen > >>> hypercall callback handlers would need to be changed per architecture, > >>> for instance, we'd also incur the cost of switching states from > >>> user / kernel (this cost is also present if preempt_schedule_irq() > >>> is used). There may be other issues which could be introduced with > >>> this strategy as well. The simplest *shared* alternative is instead > >>> to just explicitly schedule() at the end of a private hypercall on non > >>> preempt kernels. This forces our private hypercall call mechanism > >>> to try to be fair only on non CONFIG_PREEMPT kernels at the cost of > >>> more context switch but keeps the private hypercall context intact. > >>> > >>> [0] > >>> http://xenbits.xen.org/gitweb/?p=xen.git;a=commitdiff;h=42217cbc5b3e84b8c145d8cfb62dd5de0134b9e8;hp=3a0b9c57d5c9e82c55dd967c84dd06cb43c49ee9 > >>> [1] > >>> http://ftp.suse.com/pub/people/mcgrof/xen-preempt-hypercalls/0001-x86-xen-allow-privcmd-hypercalls-to-be-preempted.patch > >>> > >>> Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dbu...@suse.de> > >>> Cc: Joerg Roedel <jroe...@suse.de> > >>> Cc: Borislav Petkov <b...@suse.de> > >>> Cc: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.w...@oracle.com> > >>> Cc: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> > >>> Cc: Juergen Gross <jgr...@suse.com> > >>> Cc: Olaf Hering <oher...@suse.de> > >>> Cc: David Vrabel <david.vra...@citrix.com> > >>> Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcg...@suse.com> > >>> --- > >>> drivers/xen/privcmd.c | 3 +++ > >>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/drivers/xen/privcmd.c b/drivers/xen/privcmd.c > >>> index 569a13b..e29edba 100644 > >>> --- a/drivers/xen/privcmd.c > >>> +++ b/drivers/xen/privcmd.c > >>> @@ -60,6 +60,9 @@ static long privcmd_ioctl_hypercall(void __user *udata) > >>> hypercall.arg[0], hypercall.arg[1], > >>> hypercall.arg[2], hypercall.arg[3], > >>> hypercall.arg[4]); > >>> +#ifndef CONFIG_PREEMPT > >>> + schedule(); > >>> +#endif > >>> > >>> return ret; > >>> } > >>> > >> Sorry, I don't think this will solve anything. You're calling schedule() > >> right after the long running hypercall just nanoseconds before returning > >> to the user. > > Yeah, well that is what [1] tried as well only it tried using > > preempt_schedule_irq() on the hypercall callback... > > > >> I suppose you were mislead by the "int 0x82" in [0]. This is the > >> hypercall from the kernel into the hypervisor, e.g. inside of > >> privcmd_call(). > > Nope, you have to consider what was done in [1], I was trying to > > do something similar but less complex that didn't involve mucking > > with the callbacks but also not abusing APIs. > > > > I'm afraid we don't have much leg room. > > XenServer uses > > https://github.com/xenserver/linux-3.x.pg/blob/master/master/0001-x86-xen-allow-privcmd-hypercalls-to-be-preempted.patch > > to deal with these issues. That patch is based on 3.10. > > I can remember whether this has been submitted upstream before (and > there were outstanding issues), or whether it fell at an inconvenient > time with our development cycles. > > David: do you recall?
This was precicely the patch I reviewed in [1]. Luis _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel