On Thu, Oct 08, 2009 at 01:17:35AM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> (Adding Thomas in Cc)
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 03, 2009 at 08:12:05PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > Michael,
> >
> > Can you please give the patch below a try please? (without acpi_pm timer
> > or priority adjustments for the guest).
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 05:12:17PM +0400, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> > > Hello.
> > >
> > > I'm having quite an.. unusable system here.
> > > It's not really a regresssion with 0.11.0,
> > > it was something similar before, but with
> > > 0.11.0 and/or 2.6.31 it become much worse.
> > >
> > > The thing is that after some uptime, kvm
> > > guest prints something like this:
> > >
> > > hrtimer: interrupt too slow, forcing clock min delta to 461487495 ns
> > >
> > > after which system (guest) speeed becomes
> > > very slow. The above message is from
> > > 2.6.31 guest running wiht 0.11.0 & 2.6.31
> > > host. Before I tried it with 0.10.6 and
> > > 2.6.30 or 2.6.27, and the delta were a
> > > bit less than that:
> > >
> > > hrtimer: interrupt too slow, forcing clock min delta to 152222415 ns
> > > 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).
> >
> > 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;
>
>
> I haven't thought about the guest that could be scheduled out in
> the middle of the timers servicing, making wrong this check based
> of the time spent in hrtimer_interrupt().
>
> I guess there is no easy/generic/cheap way to rebase this check
> on the _virtual_ time spent in the timers servicing. By virtual,
> I mean the time spent in the guest only.
>
> In a non-guest kernel, the old check forces an adaptive rate
> sharing:
>
> - we spent n nanosecs to service the batch of timers.
> - we are hanging
> - we want at least 3/4 of time reserved for non-timer
> servicing in the kernel, this is a minimum prerequisite
> for the system to not starve
> - adapt the min_clock_delta against to fit the above constraint
>
> All that does not make sense anymore in a guest. The hang detection
> and warnings, the recalibrations of the min_clock_deltas are completely
> wrong in this context.
> Not only does it spuriously warn, but the minimum timer is increasing
> slowly and the guest progressively suffers from higher and higher
> latencies.
>
> That's really bad.
>
> Your patch lowers the immediate impact and makes this illness evolving
> smoother by scaling down the recalibration to the min_clock_delta.
> This appeases the bug but doesn't solve it. I fear it could be even
> worse because it makes it more discreet.
True.
> May be can we instead increase the minimum threshold of loop in the
> hrtimer interrupt before considering it as a hang? Hmm, but a too high
> number could make this check useless, depending of the number of pending
> timers, which is a finite number.
>
> Well, actually I'm not confident anymore in this check. Or actually we
> should change it. May be we can rebase it on the time spent on the hrtimer
> interrupt (and check it every 10 loops of reprocessing in hrtimer_interrupts).
>
> Would a mimimum threshold of 5 seconds spent in hrtimer_interrupt() be
> a reasonable check to perform?
> We should probably base our check on such kind of high boundary.
> What we want is an ultimate rescue against hard hangs anyway, not
> something that can solve the hang source itself. After the min_clock_delta
> recalibration, the system will be unstable (eg: high latencies).
> So if this must behave as a hammer, let's ensure we really need this hammer,
> even if we need to wait for few seconds before it triggers.
>
>
> What do you think?
What about getting rid of the retry loop, instead? So something
like:
- run hrtimer callbacks (once)
- while (tick_program_event(expires))
expires = ktime_add_ns(expires, dev->min_delta_ns)
This way there's no static tuning involved.
Its not clear to me why the loop is there in the first place.
--
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
