From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
Cc: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
peterz@infradead.org, mhillenb@amazon.de,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] kvm/x86: Inform RCU of quiescent state when entering guest mode
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 16:37:27 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180711233727.GA9888@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180711213259.GF3593@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 02:32:59PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 11:11:19PM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 07/11/2018 10:27 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 08:39:36PM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On 07/11/2018 08:36 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > >>> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 11:20:53AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > >>>> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 07:01:01PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > >>>>> From: David Woodhouse <dwmw@amazon.co.uk>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> RCU can spend long periods of time waiting for a CPU which is actually in
> > >>>>> KVM guest mode, entirely pointlessly. Treat it like the idle and userspace
> > >>>>> modes, and don't wait for it.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Signed-off-by: David Woodhouse <dwmw@amazon.co.uk>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> And idiot here forgot about some of the debugging code in RCU's dyntick-idle
> > >>>> code. I will reply with a fixed patch.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The code below works just fine as long as you don't enable CONFIG_RCU_EQS_DEBUG,
> > >>>> so should be OK for testing, just not for mainline.
> > >>>
> > >>> And here is the updated code that allegedly avoids splatting when run with
> > >>> CONFIG_RCU_EQS_DEBUG.
> > >>>
> > >>> Thoughts?
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanx, Paul
> > >>>
> > >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>>
> > >>> commit 12cd59e49cf734f907f44b696e2c6e4b46a291c3
> > >>> Author: David Woodhouse <dwmw@amazon.co.uk>
> > >>> Date: Wed Jul 11 19:01:01 2018 +0100
> > >>>
> > >>> kvm/x86: Inform RCU of quiescent state when entering guest mode
> > >>>
> > >>> RCU can spend long periods of time waiting for a CPU which is actually in
> > >>> KVM guest mode, entirely pointlessly. Treat it like the idle and userspace
> > >>> modes, and don't wait for it.
> > >>>
> > >>> Signed-off-by: David Woodhouse <dwmw@amazon.co.uk>
> > >>> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > >>> [ paulmck: Adjust to avoid bad advice I gave to dwmw, avoid WARN_ON()s. ]
> > >>>
> > >>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > >>> index 0046aa70205a..b0c82f70afa7 100644
> > >>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > >>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > >>> @@ -7458,7 +7458,9 @@ static int vcpu_enter_guest(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > >>> vcpu->arch.switch_db_regs &= ~KVM_DEBUGREG_RELOAD;
> > >>> }
> > >>>
> > >>> + rcu_kvm_enter();
> > >>> kvm_x86_ops->run(vcpu);
> > >>> + rcu_kvm_exit();
> > >>
> > >> As indicated in my other mail. This is supposed to be handled in the guest_enter|exit_ calls around
> > >> the run function. This would also handle other architectures. So if the guest_enter_irqoff code is
> > >> not good enough, we should rather fix that instead of adding another rcu hint.
> > >
> > > Something like this, on top of the earlier patch? I am not at all
> > > confident of this patch because there might be other entry/exit
> > > paths I am missing. Plus there might be RCU uses on the arch-specific
> > > patch to and from the guest OS.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> >
> > If you instrment guest_enter/exit, you should cover all cases and all architectures as far
> > as I can tell. FWIW, we did this rcu_note thing back then actually handling this particular
> > case of long running guests blocking rcu for many seconds. And I am pretty sure that
> > this did help back then.
>
> And my second patch on the email you replied to replaced the only call
> to rcu_virt_note_context_switch(). So maybe it covers what it needs to,
> but yes, there might well be things I missed. Let's see what David
> comes up with.
>
> What changed was RCU's reactions to longish grace periods. It used to
> be very aggressive about forcing the scheduler to do otherwise-unneeded
> context switches, which became a problem somewhere between v4.9 and v4.15.
> I therefore reduced the number of such context switches, which in turn
> caused KVM to tell RCU about quiescent states way too infrequently.
>
> The advantage of the rcu_kvm_enter()/rcu_kvm_exit() approach is that
> it tells RCU of an extended duration in the guest, which means that
> RCU can ignore the corresponding CPU, which in turn allows the guest
> to proceed without any RCU-induced interruptions.
>
> Does that make sense, or am I missing something? I freely admit to
> much ignorance of both kvm and s390! ;-)
But I am getting some rcutorture near misses on the commit that
introduces rcu_kvm_enter() and rcu_kvm_exit() to the x86 arch-specific
vcpu_enter_guest() function. These near misses occur when running
rcutorture scenarios TREE01 and TREE03, and in my -rcu tree rather
than the v4.15 version of this patch.
Given that I am making pervasive changes to the way that RCU works,
it might well be that this commit is an innocent bystander. I will
run tests overnight and let you know what comes up.
Thanx, Paul
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-07-11 23:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 93+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-07-06 14:53 [RFC] Make need_resched() return true when rcu_urgent_qs requested David Woodhouse
2018-07-06 16:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-07-06 17:11 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-07-06 17:14 ` David Woodhouse
2018-07-06 21:12 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-07-09 8:58 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-07-09 8:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-07-09 9:18 ` David Woodhouse
2018-07-09 10:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-07-09 10:56 ` David Woodhouse
2018-07-09 11:06 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-07-09 11:12 ` David Woodhouse
2018-07-09 11:31 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-07-09 12:34 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-07-09 12:47 ` David Woodhouse
2018-07-09 14:30 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-07-09 12:55 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-07-09 12:57 ` David Woodhouse
2018-07-09 13:02 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-07-09 14:29 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-07-09 14:43 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-07-09 14:54 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-07-09 15:26 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-07-09 16:34 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-07-09 16:44 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-07-09 18:50 ` David Woodhouse
2018-07-09 20:34 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-07-09 20:35 ` David Woodhouse
2018-07-09 20:42 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-07-09 20:45 ` David Woodhouse
2018-07-09 21:05 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-07-09 22:08 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-07-11 10:57 ` David Woodhouse
2018-07-11 12:51 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-07-11 12:58 ` David Woodhouse
2018-07-11 14:25 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-07-11 14:23 ` David Woodhouse
2018-07-11 14:43 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-07-11 16:49 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-07-11 17:03 ` David Woodhouse
2018-07-11 17:48 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-07-11 18:01 ` [PATCH v2] kvm/x86: Inform RCU of quiescent state when entering guest mode David Woodhouse
2018-07-11 18:20 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-07-11 18:36 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-07-11 18:39 ` Christian Borntraeger
2018-07-11 20:27 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-07-11 20:54 ` David Woodhouse
2018-07-11 21:09 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-07-11 21:11 ` Christian Borntraeger
2018-07-11 21:32 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-07-11 21:39 ` Christian Borntraeger
2018-07-11 23:47 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-07-12 8:31 ` David Woodhouse
2018-07-12 11:00 ` Christian Borntraeger
2018-07-12 11:10 ` David Woodhouse
2018-07-12 11:58 ` Christian Borntraeger
2018-07-12 12:04 ` Christian Borntraeger
2018-07-11 23:37 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2018-07-12 2:15 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-07-12 6:21 ` Christian Borntraeger
2018-07-12 9:52 ` David Woodhouse
2018-07-11 18:31 ` [RFC] Make need_resched() return true when rcu_urgent_qs requested Christian Borntraeger
2018-07-11 20:17 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-07-11 20:19 ` David Woodhouse
2018-07-11 21:08 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-07-12 12:00 ` David Woodhouse
2018-07-12 12:53 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-07-12 16:17 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-07-16 15:40 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-07-17 8:19 ` David Woodhouse
2018-07-17 12:56 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-07-18 15:36 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-07-18 16:01 ` David Woodhouse
2018-07-18 16:37 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-07-18 19:41 ` David Woodhouse
2018-07-18 20:17 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-07-19 0:26 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2018-07-19 6:45 ` Christian Borntraeger
2018-07-19 7:20 ` David Woodhouse
2018-07-19 10:23 ` Christian Borntraeger
2018-07-19 12:55 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-07-19 13:14 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2018-07-19 13:36 ` David Woodhouse
2018-07-19 17:09 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-07-23 8:08 ` David Woodhouse
2018-07-23 12:22 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-07-19 0:32 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2018-07-19 3:11 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-07-19 6:16 ` David Woodhouse
2018-07-19 13:17 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2018-07-19 13:15 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2018-07-10 9:24 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-07-10 16:26 ` Paul E. McKenney
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20180711233727.GA9888@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
--cc=dwmw2@infradead.org \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mhillenb@amazon.de \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).