Re: Elvis upstreaming plan

["Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>]

On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 12:41:31PM +0200, Abel Gordon wrote:
> 
> 
> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> wrote on 27/11/2013 12:27:19 PM:
> 
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 09:43:33AM +0200, Joel Nider wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Razya is out for a few days, so I will try to answer the questions as
> well
> > > as I can:
> > >
> > > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> wrote on 26/11/2013 11:11:57 PM:
> > >
> > > > From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
> > > > To: Abel Gordon/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL,
> > > > Cc: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>, abel.gordon@gmail.com,
> > > > asias@redhat.com, digitaleric@google.com, Eran Raichstein/Haifa/
> > > > IBM@IBMIL, gleb@redhat.com, jasowang@redhat.com, Joel Nider/Haifa/
> > > > IBM@IBMIL, kvm@vger.kernel.org, pbonzini@redhat.com, Razya Ladelsky/
> > > > Haifa/IBM@IBMIL
> > > > Date: 27/11/2013 01:08 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: Elvis upstreaming plan
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 08:53:47PM +0200, Abel Gordon wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws> wrote on 26/11/2013
> 08:05:00
> > > PM:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Razya Ladelsky <RAZYA@il.ibm.com> writes:
> > > > > >
> > > <edit>
> > > > >
> > > > > That's why we are proposing to implement a mechanism that will
> enable
> > > > > the management stack to configure 1 thread per I/O device (as it is
> > > today)
> > > > > or 1 thread for many I/O devices (belonging to the same VM).
> > > > >
> > > > > > Once you are scheduling multiple guests in a single vhost device,
> you
> > > > > > now create a whole new class of DoS attacks in the best case
> > > scenario.
> > > > >
> > > > > Again, we are NOT proposing to schedule multiple guests in a single
> > > > > vhost thread. We are proposing to schedule multiple devices
> belonging
> > > > > to the same guest in a single (or multiple) vhost thread/s.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I guess a question then becomes why have multiple devices?
> > >
> > > If you mean "why serve multiple devices from a single thread" the
> answer is
> > > that we cannot rely on the Linux scheduler which has no knowledge of
> I/O
> > > queues to do a decent job of scheduling I/O.  The idea is to take over
> the
> > > I/O scheduling responsibilities from the kernel's thread scheduler with
> a
> > > more efficient I/O scheduler inside each vhost thread.  So by combining
> all
> > > of the I/O devices from the same guest (disks, network cards, etc) in a
> > > single I/O thread, it allows us to provide better scheduling by giving
> us
> > > more knowledge of the nature of the work.  So now instead of relying on
> the
> > > linux scheduler to perform context switches between multiple vhost
> threads,
> > > we have a single thread context in which we can do the I/O scheduling
> more
> > > efficiently.  We can closely monitor the performance needs of each
> queue of
> > > each device inside the vhost thread which gives us much more
> information
> > > than relying on the kernel's thread scheduler.
> > > This does not expose any additional opportunities for attacks (DoS or
> > > other) than are already available since all of the I/O traffic belongs
> to a
> > > single guest.
> > > You can make the argument that with low I/O loads this mechanism may
> not
> > > make much difference.  However when you try to maximize the utilization
> of
> > > your hardware (such as in a commercial scenario) this technique can
> gain
> > > you a large benefit.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Joel Nider
> > > Virtualization Research
> > > IBM Research and Development
> > > Haifa Research Lab
> >
> > So all this would sound more convincing if we had sharing between VMs.
> > When it's only a single VM it's somehow less convincing, isn't it?
> > Of course if we would bypass a scheduler like this it becomes harder to
> > enforce cgroup limits.
> 
> True, but here the issue becomes isolation/cgroups. We can start to show
> the value for VMs that have multiple devices / queues and then we could
> re-consider extending the mechanism for multiple VMs (at least as a
> experimental feature).

Sorry, If it's unsafe we can't merge it even if it's experimental.

> > But it might be easier to give scheduler the info it needs to do what we
> > need.  Would an API that basically says "run this kthread right now"
> > do the trick?
> 
> ...do you really believe it would be possible to push this kind of change
> to the Linux scheduler ? In addition, we need more than
> "run this kthread right now" because you need to monitor the virtio
> ring activity to specify "when" you will like to run a "specific kthread"
> and for "how long".

How long is easy - just call schedule. When sounds like specifying a
deadline which sounds like a reasonable fit to how scheduler works now.
Certainly adding an in-kernel API sounds like a better approach than
a bunch of user-visible ones.
So I'm not at all saying we need to change the scheduler - it's more
adding APIs to existing functionality.

> >
> > >
> 
> > >
> 
> > >
> 
> > >  Phone: 972-4-829-6326 | Mobile: 972-54-3155635          (Embedded
> > image moved to file:
> > >  E-mail: JOELN@il.ibm.com
> > pic39571.gif)IBM
> > >
> 
> > >
> 
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I am Razya Ladelsky, I work at IBM Haifa virtualization team,
> which
> > > > > > > developed Elvis, presented by Abel Gordon at the last KVM
> forum:
> > > > > > > ELVIS video:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EyweibHfEs
> > > > > > > ELVIS slides:
> > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzyAwvVlQckeQmpnOHM5SnB5UVE
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > According to the discussions that took place at the forum,
> > > upstreaming
> > > > > > > some of the Elvis approaches seems to be a good idea, which we
> > > would
> > > > > like
> > > > > > > to pursue.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Our plan for the first patches is the following:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1.Shared vhost thread between mutiple devices
> > > > > > > This patch creates a worker thread and worker queue shared
> across
> > > > > multiple
> > > > > > > virtio devices
> > > > > > > We would like to modify the patch posted in
> > > > > > > https://github.com/abelg/virtual_io_acceleration/commit/
> > > > > > 3dc6a3ce7bcbe87363c2df8a6b6fee0c14615766
> > > > > > > to limit a vhost thread to serve multiple devices only if they
> > > belong
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > the same VM as Paolo suggested to avoid isolation or cgroups
> > > concerns.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Another modification is related to the creation and removal of
> > > vhost
> > > > > > > threads, which will be discussed next.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think this is an exceptionally bad idea.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We shouldn't throw away isolation without exhausting every other
> > > > > > possibility.
> > > > >
> > > > > Seems you have missed the important details here.
> > > > > Anthony, we are aware you are concerned about isolation
> > > > > and you believe we should not share a single vhost thread across
> > > > > multiple VMs.  That's why Razya proposed to change the patch
> > > > > so we will serve multiple virtio devices using a single vhost
> thread
> > > > > "only if the devices belong to the same VM". This series of patches
> > > > > will not allow two different VMs to share the same vhost thread.
> > > > > So, I don't see why this will be throwing away isolation and why
> > > > > this could be a "exceptionally bad idea".
> > > > >
> > > > > By the way, I remember that during the KVM forum a similar
> > > > > approach of having a single data plane thread for many devices
> > > > > was discussed....
> > > > > > We've seen very positive results from adding threads.  We should
> also
> > > > > > look at scheduling.
> > > > >
> > > > > ...and we have also seen exceptionally negative results from
> > > > > adding threads, both for vhost and data-plane. If you have lot of
> idle
> > > > > time/cores
> > > > > then it makes sense to run multiple threads. But IMHO in many
> scenarios
> > > you
> > > > > don't have lot of idle time/cores.. and if you have them you would
> > > probably
> > > > > prefer to run more VMs/VCPUs....hosting a single SMP VM when you
> have
> > > > > enough physical cores to run all the VCPU threads and the I/O
> threads
> > > is
> > > > > not a
> > > > > realistic scenario.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2. Sysfs mechanism to add and remove vhost threads
> > > > > > > This patch allows us to add and remove vhost threads
> dynamically.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A simpler way to control the creation of vhost threads is
> > > statically
> > > > > > > determining the maximum number of virtio devices per worker via
> a
> > > > > kernel
> > > > > > > module parameter (which is the way the previously mentioned
> patch
> > > is
> > > > > > > currently implemented)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'd like to ask for advice here about the more preferable way
> to
> > > go:
> > > > > > > Although having the sysfs mechanism provides more flexibility,
> it
> > > may
> > > > > be a
> > > > > > > good idea to start with a simple static parameter, and have the
> > > first
> > > > > > > patches as simple as possible. What do you think?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 3.Add virtqueue polling mode to vhost
> > > > > > > Have the vhost thread poll the virtqueues with high I/O rate
> for
> > > new
> > > > > > > buffers , and avoid asking the guest to kick us.
> > > > > > > https://github.com/abelg/virtual_io_acceleration/commit/
> > > > > > 26616133fafb7855cc80fac070b0572fd1aaf5d0
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ack on this.
> > > > >
> > > > > :)
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Abel.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Anthony Liguori
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > 4. vhost statistics
> > > > > > > This patch introduces a set of statistics to monitor different
> > > > > performance
> > > > > > > metrics of vhost and our polling and I/O scheduling mechanisms.
> The
> > > > > > > statistics are exposed using debugfs and can be easily
> displayed
> > > with a
> > > > >
> > > > > > > Python script (vhost_stat, based on the old kvm_stats)
> > > > > > > https://github.com/abelg/virtual_io_acceleration/commit/
> > > > > > ac14206ea56939ecc3608dc5f978b86fa322e7b0
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 5. Add heuristics to improve I/O scheduling
> > > > > > > This patch enhances the round-robin mechanism with a set of
> > > heuristics
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > decide when to leave a virtqueue and proceed to the next.
> > > > > > > https://github.com/abelg/virtual_io_acceleration/commit/
> > > > > > f6a4f1a5d6b82dc754e8af8af327b8d0f043dc4d
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This patch improves the handling of the requests by the vhost
> > > thread,
> > > > > but
> > > > > > > could perhaps be delayed to a
> > > > > > > later time , and not submitted as one of the first Elvis
> patches.
> > > > > > > I'd love to hear some comments about whether this patch needs
> to be
> > > > > part
> > > > > > > of the first submission.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Any other feedback on this plan will be appreciated,
> > > > > > > Thank you,
> > > > > > > Razya
> > > > > >
> > > >
> >
> >