On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 7:51 PM, Anthony Liguori
<aligu...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On 01/25/2011 01:45 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 7:18 PM, Anthony Liguori
>> <aligu...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 01/25/2011 03:49 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 7:12 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi<stefa...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 8:05 PM, Kevin Wolf<kw...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 24.01.2011 20:47, schrieb Michael S. Tsirkin:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 08:48:05PM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Am 24.01.2011 20:36, schrieb Michael S. Tsirkin:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 07:54:20PM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Am 12.12.2010 16:02, schrieb Stefan Hajnoczi:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Virtqueue notify is currently handled synchronously in userspace
>>>>>>>>>>> virtio. This
>>>>>>>>>>> prevents the vcpu from executing guest code while hardware
>>>>>>>>>>> emulation code
>>>>>>>>>>> handles the notify.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On systems that support KVM, the ioeventfd mechanism can be used
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>>> virtqueue notify a lightweight exit by deferring hardware
>>>>>>>>>>> emulation
>>>>>>>>>>> to the
>>>>>>>>>>> iothread and allowing the VM to continue execution. This model
>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>> similar to
>>>>>>>>>>> how vhost receives virtqueue notifies.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The result of this change is improved performance for userspace
>>>>>>>>>>> virtio devices.
>>>>>>>>>>> Virtio-blk throughput increases especially for multithreaded
>>>>>>>>>>> scenarios and
>>>>>>>>>>> virtio-net transmit throughput increases substantially.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Some virtio devices are known to have guest drivers which expect
>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>> notify to be
>>>>>>>>>>> processed synchronously and spin waiting for completion. Only
>>>>>>>>>>> enable ioeventfd
>>>>>>>>>>> for virtio-blk and virtio-net for now.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Care must be taken not to interfere with vhost-net, which uses
>>>>>>>>>>> host
>>>>>>>>>>> notifiers. If the set_host_notifier() API is used by a device
>>>>>>>>>>> virtio-pci will disable virtio-ioeventfd and let the device deal
>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>> host notifiers as it wishes.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> After migration and on VM change state (running/paused)
>>>>>>>>>>> virtio-ioeventfd
>>>>>>>>>>> will enable/disable itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> * VIRTIO_CONFIG_S_DRIVER_OK -> enable virtio-ioeventfd
>>>>>>>>>>> * !VIRTIO_CONFIG_S_DRIVER_OK -> disable virtio-ioeventfd
>>>>>>>>>>> * virtio_pci_set_host_notifier() -> disable virtio-ioeventfd
>>>>>>>>>>> * vm_change_state(running=0) -> disable virtio-ioeventfd
>>>>>>>>>>> * vm_change_state(running=1) -> enable virtio-ioeventfd
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Hajnoczi<stefa...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On current git master I'm getting hangs when running iozone on a
>>>>>>>>>> virtio-blk disk. "Hang" means that it's not responsive any more
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>> 100% CPU consumption.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I bisected the problem to this patch. Any ideas?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Kevin
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Does it help if you set ioeventfd=off on command line?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, with ioeventfd=off it seems to work fine.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Kevin
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then it's the ioeventfd that is to blame.
>>>>>>> Is it the io thread that consumes 100% CPU?
>>>>>>> Or the vcpu thread?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was building with the default options, i.e. there is no IO thread.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now I'm just running the test with IO threads enabled, and so far
>>>>>> everything looks good. So I can only reproduce the problem with IO
>>>>>> threads disabled.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hrm...aio uses SIGUSR2 to force the vcpu to process aio completions
>>>>> (relevant when --enable-io-thread is not used). I will take a look at
>>>>> that again and see why we're spinning without checking for ioeventfd
>>>>> completion.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Here's my understanding of --disable-io-thread. Added Anthony on CC,
>>>> please correct me.
>>>>
>>>> When I/O thread is disabled our only thread runs guest code until an
>>>> exit request is made. There are synchronous exit cases like a halt
>>>> instruction or single step. There are also asynchronous exit cases
>>>> when signal handlers use qemu_notify_event(), which does cpu_exit(),
>>>> to set env->exit_request = 1 and unlink the current tb.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Correct.
>>>
>>> Note that this is a problem today. If you have a tight loop in TCG and
>>> you
>>> have nothing that would generate a signal (no pending disk I/O and no
>>> periodic timer) then the main loop is starved.
>>>
>>
>> Even with KVM we can spin inside the guest and get a softlockup due to
>> the dynticks race condition shown above. In a CPU bound guest that's
>> doing no I/O it's possible to go AWOL for extended periods of time.
>>
>
> This is a different race. I need to look more deeply into the code.
int kvm_cpu_exec(CPUState *env)
{
struct kvm_run *run = env->kvm_run;
int ret;
DPRINTF("kvm_cpu_exec()\n");
do {
This is broken because a signal handler could change env->exit_request
after this check:
#ifndef CONFIG_IOTHREAD
if (env->exit_request) {
DPRINTF("interrupt exit requested\n");
ret = 0;
break;
}
#endif
if (kvm_arch_process_irqchip_events(env)) {
ret = 0;
break;
}
if (env->kvm_vcpu_dirty) {
kvm_arch_put_registers(env, KVM_PUT_RUNTIME_STATE);
env->kvm_vcpu_dirty = 0;
}
kvm_arch_pre_run(env, run);
cpu_single_env = NULL;
qemu_mutex_unlock_iothread();
env->exit_request might be set but we still reenter, possibly without
rearming the timer:
ret = kvm_vcpu_ioctl(env, KVM_RUN, 0);
>> I can think of two solutions:
>> 1. Block SIGALRM during critical regions, not sure if the necessary
>> atomic signal mask capabilities are there in KVM. Haven't looked at
>> TCG yet either.
>> 2. Make a portion of the timer code signal-safe and rearm the timer
>> from within the SIGLARM handler.
>>
>
> Or, switch to timerfd and stop using a signal based alarm timer.
Doesn't work for !CONFIG_IOTHREAD.
Stefan
