Re: [PATCH] qemu-kvm: response to SIGUSR1 to start/stop a VCPU (v2)

[Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

Actually CCing Rik now!

On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 08:57:16PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 03:49:44PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > On 12/02/2010 03:13 PM, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> > >On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 02:41:35PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > >>  >>   What I'd like to see in directed yield is donating exactly the
> > >>  >>   amount of vruntime that's needed to make the target thread run.
> > >>  >
> > >>  >I presume this requires the target vcpu to move left in rb-tree to run
> > >>  >earlier than scheduled currently and that it doesn't involve any
> > >>  >change to the sched_period() of target vcpu?
> > >>  >
> > >>  >Just was wondering how this would work in case of buggy guests. Lets say that a
> > >>  >guest ran into a AB<->BA deadlock. VCPU0 spins on lock B (held by VCPU1
> > >>  >currently), while VCPU spins on lock A (held by VCPU0 currently). Both keep
> > >>  >boosting each other's vruntime, potentially affecting fairtime for other guests
> > >>  >(to the point of starving them perhaps)?
> > >>
> > >>  We preserve vruntime overall.  If you give vruntime to someone, it
> > >>  comes at your own expense.  Overall vruntime is preserved.
> > >
> > >Hmm ..so I presume that this means we don't affect target thread's position in
> > >rb-tree upon donation, rather we influence its sched_period() to include
> > >donated time? IOW donation has no effect on causing the target thread to run
> > >"immediately", rather it will have the effect of causing it run "longer"
> > >whenever it runs next?
> > 
> > No.  The intent (at least mine, maybe Rik has other ideas) is to
> 
> CCing Rik now ..
> 
> > move some vruntime from current to target such that target would be
> > placed before current in the timeline.
> 
> Well ok, then this is what I had presumed earlier (about shifting target towards
> left in rb-tree).
> 
> > >Even that would require some precaution in directed yield to ensure that it
> > >doesn't unduly inflate vruntime of target, hurting fairness for other guests on
> > >same cpu as target (example guest code that can lead to this situation
> > >below):
> > >
> > >vcpu0:				vcpu1:
> > >
> > >				spinlock(A);
> > >
> > >spinlock(A);
> > >
> > >                         	while(1)
> > >				;
> > >
> > >			 	spin_unlock(A);
> > 
> > directed yield should preserve the invariant that sum(vruntime) does
> > not change.
> 
> Hmm don't think I understand this invariant sum() part. Lets take a simple
> example as below:
> 
> 
> p0	-> A0 B0 A1
> 
> p1	-> B1 C0 C1
> 
> A/B/C are VMs and A0 etc are virtual cpus. p0/1 are physical cpus
> 
> Let's say A0/A1 hit AB-BA spin-deadlock (which one can write in userspace
> delibrately). When A0 spins and exits (due to PLE) what does its directed yield
> do? Going by your statement, it can put target before current, leading to
> perhaps this arrangement in runqueue:
> 
> p0	-> A1 B0 A0
> 
> Now A1 spins and wants to do a directed yield back to A0, leading to :
> 
> p0	-> A0 B0 A1
> 
> This can go back and forth, starving B0 (iow leading to some sort of DoS
> attack).
> 
> Where does the "invariant sum" part of directed yield kick in to avoid such 
> nastiness?
> 
> - vatsa