From: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
To: Leonardo Bras <leobras@redhat.com>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] kvm: Note an RCU quiescent state on guest exit
Date: Mon, 13 May 2024 16:14:03 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZkJme7kRGGNdxwnb@tpad> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZkGFmISfnrKNrUgj@LeoBras>
On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 12:14:32AM -0300, Leonardo Bras wrote:
> On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 06:44:23PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 11:05:56PM -0300, Leonardo Bras wrote:
> > > As of today, KVM notes a quiescent state only in guest entry, which is good
> > > as it avoids the guest being interrupted for current RCU operations.
> > >
> > > While the guest vcpu runs, it can be interrupted by a timer IRQ that will
> > > check for any RCU operations waiting for this CPU. In case there are any of
> > > such, it invokes rcu_core() in order to sched-out the current thread and
> > > note a quiescent state.
> > >
> > > This occasional schedule work will introduce tens of microsseconds of
> > > latency, which is really bad for vcpus running latency-sensitive
> > > applications, such as real-time workloads.
> > >
> > > So, note a quiescent state in guest exit, so the interrupted guests is able
> > > to deal with any pending RCU operations before being required to invoke
> > > rcu_core(), and thus avoid the overhead of related scheduler work.
> >
> > This does not properly fix the current problem, as RCU work might be
> > scheduled after the VM exit, followed by a timer interrupt.
> >
> > Correct?
>
> Correct, for this case, check the note below:
>
> >
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Leonardo Bras <leobras@redhat.com>
> > > ---
> > >
> > > ps: A patch fixing this same issue was discussed in this thread:
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240328171949.743211-1-leobras@redhat.com/
> > >
> > > Also, this can be paired with a new RCU option (rcutree.nocb_patience_delay)
> > > to avoid having invoke_rcu() being called on grace-periods starting between
> > > guest exit and the timer IRQ. This RCU option is being discussed in a
> > > sub-thread of this message:
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/5fd66909-1250-4a91-aa71-93cb36ed4ad5@paulmck-laptop/
>
> ^ This one above.
> The idea is to use this rcutree.nocb_patience_delay=N :
> a new option we added on RCU that allow us to avoid invoking rcu_core() if
> the grace_period < N miliseconds. This only works on nohz_full cpus.
>
> So with both the current patch and the one in above link, we have the same
> effect as we previously had with last_guest_exit, with a cherry on top: we
> can avoid rcu_core() getting called in situations where a grace period just
> started after going into kernel code, and a timer interrupt happened before
> it can report quiescent state again.
>
> For our nohz_full vcpu thread scenario, we have:
>
> - guest_exit note a quiescent state
> - let's say we start a grace period in the next cycle
> - If timer interrupts, it requires the grace period to be older than N
> miliseconds
> - If we configure a proper value for patience, it will never reach the
> end of patience before going guest_entry, and thus noting a quiescent
> state
>
> What do you think?
I don't fully understand all of the RCU details, but since RCU quiescent
state marking happens in IRQ disabled section, there is no chance for a
timer interrupt to conflict with the marking of quiescent state.
So seem to make sense to me.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-05-13 19:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-05-11 2:05 [RFC PATCH 1/1] kvm: Note an RCU quiescent state on guest exit Leonardo Bras
2024-05-11 2:11 ` Leonardo Bras
2024-05-11 14:55 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-05-11 20:31 ` Leonardo Bras
2024-05-12 21:44 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2024-05-13 1:06 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2024-05-13 3:14 ` Leonardo Bras
2024-05-13 19:14 ` Marcelo Tosatti [this message]
2024-05-13 19:40 ` Sean Christopherson
2024-05-13 21:47 ` Leonardo Bras Soares Passos
2024-05-14 22:54 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-05-15 4:45 ` Leonardo Bras
2024-05-15 14:57 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-06-20 7:03 ` Leonardo Bras
2024-06-20 17:26 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-06-25 2:31 ` Leonardo Bras
2024-06-25 2:34 ` Leonardo Bras
2024-07-10 23:18 ` Leonardo Bras
2024-07-12 15:57 ` Paolo Bonzini
2024-07-12 20:02 ` Leonardo Bras
2024-07-29 11:28 ` Leonardo Bras Soares Passos
2024-08-27 19:50 ` Leonardo Bras Soares Passos
2024-09-03 18:07 ` Sean Christopherson
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=ZkJme7kRGGNdxwnb@tpad \
--to=mtosatti@redhat.com \
--cc=frederic@kernel.org \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=leobras@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=seanjc@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox