Re: Ideas Re: [PATCH v14 1/2] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core logic handling

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com>]

>>> On 08.03.16 at 15:42, <George.Dunlap@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 1:10 PM, Wu, Feng <feng.wu@intel.com> wrote:
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: George Dunlap [mailto:george.dunlap@citrix.com]
> [snip]
>>> It seems like there are a couple of ways we could approach this:
>>>
>>> 1. Try to optimize the reverse look-up code so that it's not a linear
>>> linked list (getting rid of the theoretical fear)
>>
>> Good point.
>>
>>>
>>> 2. Try to test engineered situations where we expect this to be a
>>> problem, to see how big of a problem it is (proving the theory to be
>>> accurate or inaccurate in this case)
>>
>> Maybe we can run a SMP guest with all the vcpus pinned to a dedicated
>> pCPU, we can run some benchmark in the guest with VT-d PI and without
>> VT-d PI, then see the performance difference between these two sceanrios.
> 
> This would give us an idea what the worst-case scenario would be.

How would a single VM ever give us an idea about the worst
case? Something getting close to worst case is a ton of single
vCPU guests all temporarily pinned to one and the same pCPU
(could be multi-vCPU ones, but the more vCPU-s the more
artificial this pinning would become) right before they go into
blocked state (i.e. through one of the two callers of
arch_vcpu_block()), the pinning removed while blocked, and
then all getting woken at once.

>  But
> pinning all vcpus to a single pcpu isn't really a sensible use case we
> want to support -- if you have to do something stupid to get a
> performance regression, then I as far as I'm concerned it's not a
> problem.
> 
> Or to put it a different way: If we pin 10 vcpus to a single pcpu and
> then pound them all with posted interrupts, and there is *no*
> significant performance regression, then that will conclusively prove
> that the theoretical performance regression is of no concern, and we
> can enable PI by default.

The point isn't the pinning. The point is what pCPU they're on when
going to sleep. And that could involve quite a few more than just
10 vCPU-s, provided they all sleep long enough.

And the "theoretical performance regression is of no concern" is
also not a proper way of looking at it, I would say: Even if such
a situation would happen extremely rarely, if it can happen at all,
it would still be a security issue.

> On the other hand, if we pin 10 vcpus to a single pcpu, pound them all
> with posted interrupts, and then there *is* a significant performance
> regression, then it would still not convince me there is a real
> problem to be solved.  There is only actually a problem if the "long
> chain of vcpus" can happen in the course of a semi-realistic use-case.
> 
> Suppose we had a set of SRIOV NICs with 10-20 virtual functions total,
> assigned to 10-20 VMs, and those VMs in a cpupool confined to a single
> socket of about 4 cores; and then we do a really network-intensive
> benchmark. That's a *bit* far-fetched, but it's something that might
> conceivably happen in the real world without any deliberate stupidity.
> If there's no significant performance issues in that case, I would
> think we can say that posted interrupts are robust enough to be
> enabled by default.
> 
>>> 3. Turn the feature on by default as soon as the 4.8 window opens up,
>>> perhaps with some sort of a check that runs when in debug mode that
>>> looks for the condition we're afraid of happening and BUG()s.  If we run
>>> a full development cycle without anyone hitting the bug in testing, then
>>> we just leave the feature on.
>>
>> Maybe we can pre-define a max acceptable length of the list,  if it really
>> reach the number, print out a warning or something like that. However,
>> how to decide the max length is a problem. May need more thinking.
> 
> I think we want to measure the amount of time spent in the interrupt
> handler (or with interrupts disabled).  It doesn't matter if the list
> is 100 items long, if it can be handled in 500us.  On the other hand,
> if a list of 4 elements takes 20ms, there's a pretty massive problem.
> :-)

Spending on the order of 500us in an interrupt handler would
already seem pretty long to me, especially when the interrupt
may get raised at a high frequency. Even more so if, when in
that state, _each_ invocation of the interrupt handler would
take that long: With an (imo not unrealistic) interrupt rate of
1kHz we would spend half of the available CPU time in that
handler.

> I don't have a good idea what an unreasonably large number would be here -- 
> Jan?

Neither do I, unfortunately.

Jan

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel