Re: [Qemu-devel] MTTCG Tasks (kvmforum summary)

["Lluís Vilanova" <vilanova@ac.upc.edu>]

Mark Burton writes:
[...]
>>>> * What to do about icount?
>>>> 
>>>> What is the impact of multi-thread on icount? Do we need to disable it
>>>> for MTTCG or can it be correct per-cpu? Can it be updated lock-step?
>>>> 
>>>> We need some input from the guys that use icount the most.
>>> 
>>> That means Edgar. :)
>> 
>> Hi!
>> 
>> IMO it would be nice if we could run the cores in some kind of lock-step
>> with a configurable amount of instructions that they can run ahead
>> of time (X).
>> 
>> For example, if X is 10000, every thread/core would checkpoint at
>> 10000 insn boundaries and wait for other cores. Between these
>> checkpoints, the cores will not be in sync. We might need to
>> consider synchronizing at I/O accesses aswell to avoid weird
>> timing issues when reading counter registers for example.
>> 
>> Of course the devil will be in the details but an approach roughly
>> like that sounds useful to me.

> And “works" in other domains.
> Theoretically we dont need to sync at IO (Dynamic quantums), for most systems
> that have ’normal' IO its normally less efficient I believe. However, the
> trouble is, the user typically doesn’t know, and mucking about with quantum
> lengths, dynamic quantum switches etc is probably a royal pain in the butt. And
> if you dont set your quantum right, the thing will run really slowly (or will
> break)…

> The choices are a rock or a hard place. Dynamic quantums risk to be slow (you’ll
> be forcing an expensive ’sync’ - all CPU’s will have to exit etc) on each IO
> access from each core…. not great. Syncing with host time (e.g. each CPU tries
> to sync with host clock as best it can) will fail when one or other CPU can’t
> keep up…. In the end you end up with leaving the user with a nice long bit of
> string and a message saying “hang yourself here”.

That price would not be paid when icount is disabled. Well, the code complexity
price is always paid... I meant runtime :)

Then, I think this depends on what type of guarantees you require from
icount. I see two possible semantics:

* All CPUs are *exactly* synchronized at icount granularity

  This means that every icount instructions everyone has to stop and
  synchronize.

* All CPUs are *loosely* synchronized at icount granularity

  You can implement it in a way that ensures that every cpu has *at least*
  reached a certain timestamp. So cpus can keep on running nonetheless.

The downside is that the latter loses the ability for reproducible runs, which
IMHO are useful. A more complex option is to merge both: icount sets the
"synchronization granularity" and another parameter sets the maximum delta
between cpus (i.e., set it to 0 to have the first option, and infinite for the
second).


Cheers,
  Lluis

-- 
"And it's much the same thing with knowledge, for whenever you learn
something new, the whole world becomes that much richer."
-- The Princess of Pure Reason, as told by Norton Juster in The Phantom
Tollbooth