From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To: Denis Plotnikov <dplotnikov@virtuozzo.com>
Cc: "kwolf@redhat.com" <kwolf@redhat.com>,
Denis Lunev <den@virtuozzo.com>,
"qemu-devel@nongnu.org" <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>,
"mreitz@redhat.com" <mreitz@redhat.com>,
Roman Kagan <rkagan@virtuozzo.com>,
"stefanha@redhat.com" <stefanha@redhat.com>,
"kraxel@redhat.com" <kraxel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] virtio: fix IO request length in virtio SCSI/block #PSBM-78839
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 07:40:41 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191213072714-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c39d90bc-92c0-6b53-b7a6-992ec69bb0b0@virtuozzo.com>
On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 09:16:10AM +0000, Denis Plotnikov wrote:
>
>
> On 06.11.2019 15:03, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 11:34:34AM +0000, Denis Lunev wrote:
> >> On 10/24/19 12:28 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 02:55:47PM +0300, Denis Plotnikov wrote:
> >>>> From: "Denis V. Lunev" <den@openvz.org>
> >>>>
> >>>> Linux guests submit IO requests no longer than PAGE_SIZE * max_seg
> >>>> field reported by SCSI controler. Thus typical sequential read with
> >>>> 1 MB size results in the following pattern of the IO from the guest:
> >>>> 8,16 1 15754 2.766095122 2071 D R 2095104 + 1008 [dd]
> >>>> 8,16 1 15755 2.766108785 2071 D R 2096112 + 1008 [dd]
> >>>> 8,16 1 15756 2.766113486 2071 D R 2097120 + 32 [dd]
> >>>> 8,16 1 15757 2.767668961 0 C R 2095104 + 1008 [0]
> >>>> 8,16 1 15758 2.768534315 0 C R 2096112 + 1008 [0]
> >>>> 8,16 1 15759 2.768539782 0 C R 2097120 + 32 [0]
> >>>> The IO was generated by
> >>>> dd if=/dev/sda of=/dev/null bs=1024 iflag=direct
> >>>>
> >>>> This effectively means that on rotational disks we will observe 3 IOPS
> >>>> for each 2 MBs processed. This definitely negatively affects both
> >>>> guest and host IO performance.
> >>>>
> >>>> The cure is relatively simple - we should report lengthy scatter-gather
> >>>> ability of the SCSI controller. Fortunately the situation here is very
> >>>> good. VirtIO transport layer can accomodate 1024 items in one request
> >>>> while we are using only 128. This situation is present since almost
> >>>> very beginning. 2 items are dedicated for request metadata thus we
> >>>> should publish VIRTQUEUE_MAX_SIZE - 2 as max_seg.
> >>>>
> >>>> The following pattern is observed after the patch:
> >>>> 8,16 1 9921 2.662721340 2063 D R 2095104 + 1024 [dd]
> >>>> 8,16 1 9922 2.662737585 2063 D R 2096128 + 1024 [dd]
> >>>> 8,16 1 9923 2.665188167 0 C R 2095104 + 1024 [0]
> >>>> 8,16 1 9924 2.665198777 0 C R 2096128 + 1024 [0]
> >>>> which is much better.
> >>>>
> >>>> The dark side of this patch is that we are tweaking guest visible
> >>>> parameter, though this should be relatively safe as above transport
> >>>> layer support is present in QEMU/host Linux for a very long time.
> >>>> The patch adds configurable property for VirtIO SCSI with a new default
> >>>> and hardcode option for VirtBlock which does not provide good
> >>>> configurable framework.
> >>>>
> >>>> Unfortunately the commit can not be applied as is. For the real cure we
> >>>> need guest to be fixed to accomodate that queue length, which is done
> >>>> only in the latest 4.14 kernel. Thus we are going to expose the property
> >>>> and tweak it on machine type level.
> >>>>
> >>>> The problem with the old kernels is that they have
> >>>> max_segments <= virtqueue_size restriction which cause the guest
> >>>> crashing in the case of violation.
> >>> This isn't just in the guests: virtio spec also seems to imply this,
> >>> or at least be vague on this point.
> >>>
> >>> So I think it'll need a feature bit.
> >>> Doing that in a safe way will also allow being compatible with old guests.
> >>>
> >>> The only downside is it's a bit more work as we need to
> >>> spec this out and add guest support.
> >>>
> >>>> To fix the case described above in the old kernels we can increase
> >>>> virtqueue_size to 256 and max_segments to 254. The pitfall here is
> >>>> that seabios allows the virtqueue_size-s < 128, however, the seabios
> >>>> patch extending that value to 256 is pending.
> >>> And the fix here is just to limit large vq size to virtio 1.0.
> >>> In that mode it's fine I think:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> /* check if the queue is available */
> >>> if (vp->use_modern) {
> >>> num = vp_read(&vp->common, virtio_pci_common_cfg, queue_size);
> >>> if (num > MAX_QUEUE_NUM) {
> >>> vp_write(&vp->common, virtio_pci_common_cfg, queue_size,
> >>> MAX_QUEUE_NUM);
> >>> num = vp_read(&vp->common, virtio_pci_common_cfg, queue_size);
> >>> }
> >>> } else {
> >>> num = vp_read(&vp->legacy, virtio_pci_legacy, queue_num);
> >>> }
> The same seabios snippet, but more detailed:
>
> vp_find_vq()
> {
> ...
> /* check if the queue is available */
> if (vp->use_modern) {
> num = vp_read(&vp->common, virtio_pci_common_cfg, queue_size);
> if (num > MAX_QUEUE_NUM) {
> vp_write(&vp->common, virtio_pci_common_cfg, queue_size,
> MAX_QUEUE_NUM);
> num = vp_read(&vp->common, virtio_pci_common_cfg, queue_size);
So how about we drop this last line in bios?
Will fix things for existing hypervisors.
spec does not say guests need to re-read it.
> }
> } else {
> num = vp_read(&vp->legacy, virtio_pci_legacy, queue_num);
> }
> if (!num) {
> dprintf(1, "ERROR: queue size is 0\n");
> goto fail;
> }
> if (num > MAX_QUEUE_NUM) {
> dprintf(1, "ERROR: queue size %d > %d\n", num, MAX_QUEUE_NUM);
> goto fail;
> }
> ...
> }
>
> It turned out that the problem is here, but not because of the seabios code.
> The virtqueue size is written and then incorrect value is re-read.
> Thanks to Roman Kagan (rkagan@virtuozzo.com) for investigating the root
> cause of the problem.
>
> As the code states, for the modern devices, seabios reads the queue size
> and if it's
> greater than seabios can support, reduce the queue size to the max
> seabios supported value.
>
> This doesn't work.
>
> The reason is that the size is read from the virtio device,
>
> virtio_pci_common_read()
> {
> ...
> case VIRTIO_PCI_COMMON_Q_SIZE:
> val = virtio_queue_get_num(vdev, vdev->queue_sel);
> break;
> ...
> }
>
> but is written to the proxy
>
> virtio_pci_common_write()
> {
> ...
> case VIRTIO_PCI_COMMON_Q_SIZE:
> proxy->vqs[vdev->queue_sel].num = val;
> break;
> ...
> }.
Yea that's a bug. Here's a hacky way to fix it.
But I think really we should just get rid of the
two copies down the road.
diff --git a/hw/virtio/virtio-pci.c b/hw/virtio/virtio-pci.c
index c6b47a9c73..e5c759e19e 100644
--- a/hw/virtio/virtio-pci.c
+++ b/hw/virtio/virtio-pci.c
@@ -1256,6 +1256,8 @@ static void virtio_pci_common_write(void *opaque, hwaddr addr,
break;
case VIRTIO_PCI_COMMON_Q_SIZE:
proxy->vqs[vdev->queue_sel].num = val;
+ virtio_queue_set_num(vdev, vdev->queue_sel,
+ proxy->vqs[vdev->queue_sel].num);
break;
case VIRTIO_PCI_COMMON_Q_MSIX:
msix_vector_unuse(&proxy->pci_dev,
> The final stage of the size setting is propagated it from the proxy to
> the device on virtqueue enabling:
>
> virtio_cpi_common_write()
> {
> ...
> case VIRTIO_PCI_COMMON_Q_ENABLE:
> virtio_queue_set_num(vdev, vdev->queue_sel,
> proxy->vqs[vdev->queue_sel].num);
> virtio_queue_set_rings(vdev, vdev->queue_sel,
> ((uint64_t)proxy->vqs[vdev->queue_sel].desc[1]) << 32 |
> proxy->vqs[vdev->queue_sel].desc[0],
> ((uint64_t)proxy->vqs[vdev->queue_sel].avail[1]) << 32 |
> proxy->vqs[vdev->queue_sel].avail[0],
> ((uint64_t)proxy->vqs[vdev->queue_sel].used[1]) << 32 |
> proxy->vqs[vdev->queue_sel].used[0]);
> proxy->vqs[vdev->queue_sel].enabled = 1;
> break;
> ...
> }.
>
> So we have the following workflow:
> suppose the device has virtqueue size = 256 and seabios MAX_QUEUE_NUM = 128.
> In that case the seabios works like:
>
> 1. if vp_modern read the size (256)
> 2. 256 > 128
> 3. write virtqueue size = 128
> 4. re-read virtqueue size = 256 !!!
bios probably should not re-read size, it's a waste of cpu cycles anyway.
> 5. fail because of the check
> if (num > MAX_QUEUE_NUM) {
> dprintf(1, "ERROR: queue size %d > %d\n", num, MAX_QUEUE_NUM);
> goto fail;
> }
>
> To fix the issue, we need to read and write the virtqueue size from the
> same place.
> Should we do with the proxy?
> Is there any reason to read from the device and write to the proxy?
>
> Furthermore, the size setting has a few flaws:
>
> 1. The size being set should be a power of 2
> 2. The size being set should be less or equal to the virtqueue size (and
> be greater that 2?)
I think 1 is checked in virtio_queue_set_num.
I guess we should check 2 as well?
>
> Denis
> >> you mean to put the code like this into virtio_pci_realize() inside QEMU?
> >>
> >> If no, can you pls clarify which component should be touched.
> >>
> >> Den
> > I mean:
> > - add an API to change the default queue size
> > - add a validate features callback, in there check and for modern
> > flag set in features increase the queue size
> >
> > maybe all this is too much work, we could block this
> > for transitional devices, but your patch does not do it,
> > you need to check that legacy is enabled not that modern
> > is not disabled.
> >
> >
> >
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-12-13 21:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-10-18 11:55 [PATCH] virtio: fix IO request length in virtio SCSI/block #PSBM-78839 Denis Plotnikov
2019-10-21 13:24 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2019-10-22 4:01 ` Denis Lunev
2019-10-23 14:17 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2019-10-23 14:37 ` Denis Lunev
2019-10-23 9:13 ` Denis Plotnikov
2019-10-23 21:50 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2019-10-23 21:28 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2019-10-24 11:34 ` Denis Lunev
2019-11-06 12:03 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2019-11-13 12:38 ` Denis Plotnikov
2019-11-13 13:18 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2019-11-14 15:33 ` Denis Plotnikov
2019-11-25 9:16 ` Denis Plotnikov
2019-12-05 7:59 ` Denis Plotnikov
2019-12-13 12:24 ` [PING] " Denis Plotnikov
2019-12-13 12:40 ` Michael S. Tsirkin [this message]
2019-11-12 10:03 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
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=20191213072714-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org \
--to=mst@redhat.com \
--cc=den@virtuozzo.com \
--cc=dplotnikov@virtuozzo.com \
--cc=kraxel@redhat.com \
--cc=kwolf@redhat.com \
--cc=mreitz@redhat.com \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
--cc=rkagan@virtuozzo.com \
--cc=stefanha@redhat.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).