From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marcelo Tosatti Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5 V5] Avoid soft lockup message when KVM is stopped by host Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 14:11:08 -0200 Message-ID: <20111219161108.GA15848@amt.cnet> References: <1323116344-17911-1-git-send-email-emunson@mgebm.net> <4EDF7B0D.4060001@redhat.com> <20111214121622.GB18317@amt.cnet> <4EE8B53C.6070502@redhat.com> <20111214182101.GB21945@amt.cnet> <4EE9CA1C.3010801@redhat.com> <20111216093149.GA26982@amt.cnet> <4EEF351E.8040002@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4EEF351E.8040002@redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Avi Kivity Cc: Eric B Munson , mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, arnd@arndb.de, ryanh@linux.vnet.ibm.com, aliguori@us.ibm.com, jeremy.fitzhardinge@citrix.com, levinsasha928@gmail.com, Jan Kiszka , kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 02:59:10PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 12/16/2011 11:31 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > > > > > > > Slow enough that progress of the watchdog thread is unable to keep up > > > > with timer interrupt processing. This is considered a hang and > > > > should be reported. > > > > > > It's not a guest hang though! > > > > No, but your host system is in such a load state that for the sake of > > system usability you better print out a warning message. > > What's the point in printing it in the guest? The guest can't observe > host conditions. > > > I don't see the advantage of preempt notifiers over the simple, paravirt > > solution proposed? Note kvmclock is already paravirt. > > Right. > > > What do you want to be done in preempt notifiers? Measure what to > > consider setting this flag? > > Preemption while TASK_RUNNING or TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE. Maybe it is good (not sure), need to look into schedstats and think of cases that would break legitimate guest hangs. And it probably also affects the position of clearing the flag on the guest side as its currently done in Eric's patchset. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:33953 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752287Ab1LSUpO (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Dec 2011 15:45:14 -0500 Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 14:11:08 -0200 From: Marcelo Tosatti Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5 V5] Avoid soft lockup message when KVM is stopped by host Message-ID: <20111219161108.GA15848@amt.cnet> References: <1323116344-17911-1-git-send-email-emunson@mgebm.net> <4EDF7B0D.4060001@redhat.com> <20111214121622.GB18317@amt.cnet> <4EE8B53C.6070502@redhat.com> <20111214182101.GB21945@amt.cnet> <4EE9CA1C.3010801@redhat.com> <20111216093149.GA26982@amt.cnet> <4EEF351E.8040002@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4EEF351E.8040002@redhat.com> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Avi Kivity Cc: Eric B Munson , mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, arnd@arndb.de, ryanh@linux.vnet.ibm.com, aliguori@us.ibm.com, jeremy.fitzhardinge@citrix.com, levinsasha928@gmail.com, Jan Kiszka , kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20111219161108.uBC7BdtlxLZZwdPKu2_HIUl6wRrLA1Bx6yncROEJ_r0@z> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 02:59:10PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 12/16/2011 11:31 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > > > > > > > Slow enough that progress of the watchdog thread is unable to keep up > > > > with timer interrupt processing. This is considered a hang and > > > > should be reported. > > > > > > It's not a guest hang though! > > > > No, but your host system is in such a load state that for the sake of > > system usability you better print out a warning message. > > What's the point in printing it in the guest? The guest can't observe > host conditions. > > > I don't see the advantage of preempt notifiers over the simple, paravirt > > solution proposed? Note kvmclock is already paravirt. > > Right. > > > What do you want to be done in preempt notifiers? Measure what to > > consider setting this flag? > > Preemption while TASK_RUNNING or TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE. Maybe it is good (not sure), need to look into schedstats and think of cases that would break legitimate guest hangs. And it probably also affects the position of clearing the flag on the guest side as its currently done in Eric's patchset.