On Sun, Oct 04, 2009 at 04:01:02PM +0400, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>> Michael,
>>
>> Can you please give the patch below a try please? (without acpi_pm
>> timer or priority adjustments for the guest).
>
> Sure. I'll try it out in a hour or two, while I can experiment freely because
> it's weekend.
>
> But I wonder...
> []
>>> hrtimer: interrupt too slow, forcing clock min delta to 93629025 ns
>>
>> It seems the way hrtimer_interrupt_hanging calculates min_delta is
>> wrong (especially to virtual machines). The guest vcpu can be scheduled
>> out during the execution of the hrtimer callbacks (and the callbacks
>> themselves can do operations that translate to blocking operations in
>> the hypervisor).
>>
>> So high min_delta values can be calculated if, for example, a single
>> hrtimer_interrupt run takes two host time slices to execute, while some
>> other higher priority task runs for N slices in between.
>>
>> Using the hrtimer_interrupt execution time (which can be the worse
>> case at any given time), as the min_delta is problematic.
>>
>> So simply increase min_delta_ns by 50% once every detected failure,
>> which will eventually lead to an acceptable threshold (the algorithm
>> should scale back to down lower min_delta, to adjust back to wealthier
>> times, too).
>
> ..I wonder what should I check for. I mean, the end result of this patch
> is not entirely clear to me, what should it change? I see that instead
> of the now-calculated-after-error (probably very large) min_delta, it's
> increased to a smaller value.
>
> So I should be getting more such messages (forcing min_delta to $foo), but
> the "responsiveness" of the guest should stay in more or less acceptable
> range (unless it will continue erroring, in which case the "responsiveness"
> will be slowly reduced).
Right.
> Yes indeed, it's better than current situation, when the guest works fine
> initially but out of the sudden it switches to a wild very-slow-to-reply
> mode. But it does not look like a right solution either, even if the
> back adjustment (mentioned in the last statement above) will be implemented.
> Unless I completely missed the point...
>
> Neverless, the question stands: what I'm looking for now, when the patch is
> applied? I can't measure the "responsiveness", especially since the min_delta
> gets set to different (large) values each time (I mean current situation
> without the patch).
You should see min_delta_ns increase to a much smaller value, hopefully in
the 2000-10000 range.
min_delta_ns is the minimum delay a high resolution timer can have. You
had it set in the hundreds of milliseconds range.
>
> Thanks!
>
> /mjt
>
>> diff --git a/kernel/hrtimer.c b/kernel/hrtimer.c
>> index 49da79a..8997978 100644
>> --- a/kernel/hrtimer.c
>> +++ b/kernel/hrtimer.c
>> @@ -1234,28 +1234,20 @@ static void __run_hrtimer(struct hrtimer *timer)
>> #ifdef CONFIG_HIGH_RES_TIMERS
>> -static int force_clock_reprogram;
>> -
>> /*
>> * After 5 iteration's attempts, we consider that hrtimer_interrupt()
>> * is hanging, which could happen with something that slows the interrupt
>> - * such as the tracing. Then we force the clock reprogramming for each
>> future
>> - * hrtimer interrupts to avoid infinite loops and use the min_delta_ns
>> - * threshold that we will overwrite.
>> - * The next tick event will be scheduled to 3 times we currently spend on
>> - * hrtimer_interrupt(). This gives a good compromise, the cpus will spend
>> - * 1/4 of their time to process the hrtimer interrupts. This is enough to
>> - * let it running without serious starvation.
>> + * such as the tracing, so we increase min_delta_ns.
>> */
>> static inline void
>> -hrtimer_interrupt_hanging(struct clock_event_device *dev,
>> - ktime_t try_time)
>> +hrtimer_interrupt_hanging(struct clock_event_device *dev)
>> {
>> - force_clock_reprogram = 1;
>> - dev->min_delta_ns = (unsigned long)try_time.tv64 * 3;
>> - printk(KERN_WARNING "hrtimer: interrupt too slow, "
>> - "forcing clock min delta to %lu ns\n", dev->min_delta_ns);
>> + dev->min_delta_ns += dev->min_delta_ns >> 1;
>> + if (printk_ratelimit())
>> + printk(KERN_WARNING "hrtimer: interrupt too slow, "
>> + "forcing clock min delta to %lu ns\n",
>> + dev->min_delta_ns);
>> }
>> /*
>> * High resolution timer interrupt
>> @@ -1276,7 +1268,7 @@ void hrtimer_interrupt(struct clock_event_device *dev)
>> retry:
>> /* 5 retries is enough to notice a hang */
>> if (!(++nr_retries % 5))
>> - hrtimer_interrupt_hanging(dev, ktime_sub(ktime_get(), now));
>> + hrtimer_interrupt_hanging(dev);
>> now = ktime_get();
>> @@ -1342,7 +1334,7 @@ void hrtimer_interrupt(struct clock_event_device
>> *dev)
>> /* Reprogramming necessary ? */
>> if (expires_next.tv64 != KTIME_MAX) {
>> - if (tick_program_event(expires_next, force_clock_reprogram))
>> + if (tick_program_event(expires_next, 0))
>> goto retry;
>> }
>> }
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
