Re: [PATCH] KVM: X86: expand ->arch.apic_arb_prio to u64

["Longpeng (Mike)" <longpeng2@huawei.com>]

On 2017/8/8 21:57, Paolo Bonzini wrote:

> On 08/08/2017 15:50, Longpeng (Mike) wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2017/8/8 21:08, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>
>>> On 08/08/2017 13:37, Longpeng(Mike) wrote:
>>>> Currently 'apic_arb_prio' is int32_t, it's too short for long
>>>> time running. In our environment, it overflowed and then the
>>>> UBSAN was angry:
>>>>
>>>> signed integer overflow:
>>>> 2147483647 + 1 cannot be represented in type 'int'
>>>> CPU: 22 PID: 31237 Comm: qemu-kvm Tainted: ...
>>>> ...
>>>> Call Trace:
>>>>  [<ffffffff81f030b6>] dump_stack+0x1e/0x20
>>>>  [<ffffffff81f03173>] ubsan_epilogue+0x12/0x55
>>>>  [<ffffffff81f04658>] handle_overflow+0x1ba/0x215
>>>>  [<ffffffff81f046dd>] __ubsan_handle_add_overflow+0x2a/0x31
>>>>  [<ffffffffa126cb1a>] __apic_accept_irq+0x57a/0x5d0 [kvm]
>>>>  [<ffffffffa126d14f>] kvm_apic_set_irq+0x9f/0xf0 [kvm]
>>>>  [<ffffffffa126db20>] kvm_irq_delivery_to_apic_fast+0x450/0x910 [kvm]
>>>>  [<ffffffffa127d8ea>] kvm_irq_delivery_to_apic+0xfa/0x7a0 [kvm]
>>>>  [<ffffffffa127e039>] kvm_set_msi+0xa9/0x100 [kvm]
>>>>  [<ffffffffa12871ed>] kvm_send_userspace_msi+0x14d/0x1f0 [kvm]
>>>>  [<ffffffffa11ed56e>] kvm_vm_ioctl+0x4ee/0xdd0 [kvm]
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> We expand it to u64, this is large enough. Suppose the vcpu receives
>>>> 1000 irqs per second, then it won't overflow in 584942417 years.
>>>> ( 18446744073709551615/1000/3600/24/365 = 584942417 )
>>>
>>> Since you only look at the difference, changing it to uint32_t should be
>>> enough.
>>
>>
>> Hi Paolo,
>>
>> I'm afraid uint32_t isn't enough. For 1000 irqs per second, it can only holds
>> 49 days ( although the overflow won't cause any corruption ).
> 
> What matters is only the difference across 2 vCPUs.
> 
> And in fact even 32 bits are probably too many, 16 or even 8 should be
> enough because overflowing arb_prio is a good thing.  If you have
> delivered millions IRQs to VCPU0 (let's say for a day), and then switch
> the interrupt to VCPU1, you don't want to the next day to have
> interrupts going to VCPU1 only.  A short warm-up time (a few seconds?)
> is acceptable, but then you should have interrupts distributed equally
> between VCPU0 and VCPU1.  This can only happen if arb_prio overflows.
> 


I understand now, thanks for your patience. :)

-- 
Regards,
Longpeng(Mike)

> Paolo
> 
>> 4294967295/1000/3600/24 = 49
>>
>>>
>>> Paolo
>>>
>>
>>> .
>>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> .
> 


-- 
Regards,
Longpeng(Mike)