Re: vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core logic handling

[David Vrabel <david.vrabel@citrix.com>]

On 10/03/16 10:46, George Dunlap wrote:
> On 10/03/16 10:35, David Vrabel wrote:
>> On 10/03/16 10:18, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>> On 10.03.16 at 11:05, <kevin.tian@intel.com> wrote:
>>>>>  From: Tian, Kevin
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 5:20 PM
>>>>>
>>>>>> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:JBeulich@suse.com]
>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 5:06 PM
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are many linked list usages today in Xen hypervisor, which
>>>>>>> have different theoretical maximum possible number. The closest
>>>>>>> one to PI might be the usage in tmem (pool->share_list) which is
>>>>>>> page based so could grow 'overly large'. Other examples are
>>>>>>> magnitude lower, e.g. s->ioreq_vcpu_list in ioreq server (which
>>>>>>> could be 8K in above example), and d->arch.hvm_domain.msixtbl_list
>>>>>>> in MSI-x virtualization (which could be 2^11 per spec). Do we
>>>>>>> also want to create some artificial scenarios to examine them
>>>>>>> since based on actual operation K-level entries may also become
>>>>>>> a problem?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just want to figure out how best we can solve all related linked-list
>>>>>>> usages in current hypervisor.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As you say, those are (perhaps with the exception of tmem, which
>>>>>> isn't supported anyway due to XSA-15, and which therefore also
>>>>>> isn't on by default) in the order of a few thousand list elements.
>>>>>> And as mentioned above, different bounds apply for lists traversed
>>>>>> in interrupt context vs such traversed only in "normal" context.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That's a good point. Interrupt context should have more restrictions.
>>>>
>>>> Hi, Jan,
>>>>
>>>> I'm thinking your earlier idea about evenly distributed list:
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Ah, right, I think that limitation was named before, yet I've
>>>> forgotten about it again. But that only slightly alters the
>>>> suggestion: To distribute vCPU-s evenly would then require to
>>>> change their placement on the pCPU in the course of entering
>>>> blocked state.
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Actually after more thinking, there is no hard requirement that
>>>> the vcpu must block on the pcpu which is configured in 'NDST'
>>>> of that vcpu's PI descriptor. What really matters, is that the
>>>> vcpu is added to the linked list of the very pcpu, then when PI
>>>> notification comes we can always find out the vcpu struct from
>>>> that pcpu's linked list. Of course one drawback of such placement
>>>> is additional IPI incurred in wake up path.
>>>>
>>>> Then one possible optimized policy within vmx_vcpu_block could 
>>>> be:
>>>>
>>>> (Say PCPU1 which VCPU1 is currently blocked on)
>>>> - As long as the #vcpus in the linked list on PCPU1 is below a 
>>>> threshold (say 16), add VCPU1 to the list. NDST set to PCPU1;
>>>> Upon PI notification on PCPU1, local linked list is searched to
>>>> find VCPU1 and then VCPU1 will be unblocked on PCPU1;
>>>>
>>>> - Otherwise, add VCPU1 to PCPU2 based on a simple distribution 
>>>> algorithm (based on vcpu_id/vm_id). VCPU1 still blocks on PCPU1
>>>> but NDST set to PCPU2. Upon notification on PCPU2, local linked
>>>> list is searched to find VCPU1 and then an IPI is sent to PCPU1 to 
>>>> unblock VCPU1;
>>>
>>> Sounds possible, if the lock handling can be got right. But of
>>> course there can't be any hard limit like 16, at least not alone
>>> (on a systems with extremely many mostly idle vCPU-s we'd
>>> need to allow larger counts - see my earlier explanations in this
>>> regard).
>>
>> You could also consider only waking the first N VCPUs and just making
>> the rest runnable.  If you wake more VCPUs than PCPUs at the same time
>> most of them won't actually be scheduled.
> 
> "Waking" a vcpu means "changing from blocked to runnable", so those two
> things are the same.  And I can't figure out what you mean instead --
> can you elaborate?
> 
> Waking up 1000 vcpus is going to take strictly more time than checking
> whether there's a PI interrupt pending on 1000 vcpus to see if they need
> to be woken up.

Waking means making it runnable /and/ attempt to make it running.

So I mean, for the > N'th VCPU don't call __runq_tickle(), only call
__runq_insert().

David

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