From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] KVM: optimize apic interrupt delivery Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 18:24:13 +0200 Message-ID: <20131126162402.GA24806@redhat.com> References: <20120911130225.GN20907@redhat.com> <20120911141023.GB26031@redhat.com> <20120911171300.GJ4257@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20120911223337.GA28821@redhat.com> <20120912010334.GK4257@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <50503D92.7090108@redhat.com> <20120912123441.GQ20907@redhat.com> <505081E9.8080505@redhat.com> <20120912124426.GR20907@redhat.com> <20120912151354.GO4257@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Gleb Natapov , kvm@vger.kernel.org, mtosatti@redhat.com To: "Paul E. McKenney" Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:42183 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757253Ab3KZQU6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Nov 2013 11:20:58 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120912151354.GO4257@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 08:13:54AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 03:44:26PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 03:36:57PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > > > On 09/12/2012 03:34 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote: > > > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 10:45:22AM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > > > >> On 09/12/2012 04:03 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > >> >> > > Paul, I'd like to check something with you here: > > > >> >> > > this function can be triggered by userspace, > > > >> >> > > any number of times; we allocate > > > >> >> > > a 2K chunk of memory that is later freed by > > > >> >> > > kfree_rcu. > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > Is there a risk of DOS if RCU is delayed while > > > >> >> > > lots of memory is queued up in this way? > > > >> >> > > If yes is this a generic problem with kfree_rcu > > > >> >> > > that should be addressed in core kernel? > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > There is indeed a risk. > > > >> >> > > > >> >> In our case it's a 2K object. Is it a practical risk? > > > >> > > > > >> > How many kfree_rcu()s per second can a given user cause to happen? > > > >> > > > >> Not much more than a few hundred thousand per second per process (normal > > > >> operation is zero). > > > >> > > > > I managed to do 21466 per second. > > > > > > Strange, why so slow? > > > > > Because ftrace buffer overflows :) With bigger buffer I get 169940. > > Ah, good, should not be a problem. In contrast, if you ran kfree_rcu() in > a tight loop, you could probably do in excess of 100M per CPU per second. > Now -that- might be a problem. > > Well, it -might- be a problem if you somehow figured out how to allocate > memory that quickly in a steady-state manner. ;-) > > > > >> Good idea. Michael, is should be easy to modify kvm-unit-tests to write > > > >> to the APIC ID register in a loop. > > > >> > > > > I did. Memory consumption does not grow on otherwise idle host. > > Very good -- the checks in __call_rcu(), which is common code invoked by > kfree_rcu(), seem to be doing their job, then. These do keep a per-CPU > counter, which can be adjusted via rcutree.blimit, which defaults > to taking evasive action if more than 10K callbacks are waiting on a > given CPU. > > My concern was that you might be overrunning that limit in way less > than a grace period (as in about a hundred microseconds. My concern > was of course unfounded -- you take several grace periods in push 10K > callbacks through. > > Thanx, Paul Gleb noted that Documentation/RCU/checklist.txt has this text: An especially important property of the synchronize_rcu() primitive is that it automatically self-limits: if grace periods are delayed for whatever reason, then the synchronize_rcu() primitive will correspondingly delay updates. In contrast, code using call_rcu() should explicitly limit update rate in cases where grace periods are delayed, as failing to do so can result in excessive realtime latencies or even OOM conditions. If call_rcu is self-limiting maybe this should be documented ... > > > Ok, thanks. > > > > > > > > > -- > > > error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function > > > > -- > > Gleb. > >