From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=45716 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PLAYK-00040n-70
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 03:18:09 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1PLAYJ-0003az-2Y
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 03:18:08 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:50111)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1PLAYI-0003aC-ON
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 03:18:06 -0500
Message-ID: <4CECCA39.4060702@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 10:18:01 +0200
From: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1290530963-3448-1-git-send-email-aliguori@us.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <1290530963-3448-1-git-send-email-aliguori@us.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH] qemu-kvm: response to SIGUSR1 to
	start/stop a VCPU (v2)
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Chris Wright <chrisw@sous-sol.org>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org

On 11/23/2010 06:49 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> qemu-kvm vcpu threads don't response to SIGSTOP/SIGCONT.  Instead of teaching
> them to respond to these signals (which cannot be trapped), use SIGUSR1 to
> approximate the behavior of SIGSTOP/SIGCONT.
>
> The purpose of this is to implement CPU hard limits using an external tool that
> watches the CPU consumption and stops the VCPU as appropriate.
>
> This provides a more elegant solution in that it allows the VCPU thread to
> release qemu_mutex before going to sleep.
>
> This current implementation uses a single signal.  I think this is too racey
> in the long term so I think we should introduce a second signal.  If two signals
> get coalesced into one, it could confuse the monitoring tool into giving the
> VCPU the inverse of it's entitlement.

You can use sigqueue() to send an accompanying value.

> It might be better to simply move this logic entirely into QEMU to make this
> more robust--the question is whether we think this is a good long term feature
> to carry in QEMU?
>

I'm more concerned about lock holder preemption, and interaction of this 
mechanism with any kernel solution for LHP.

> +static __thread int sigusr1_wfd;
> +
> +static void on_sigusr1(int signo)
> +{
> +    char ch = 0;
> +    if (write(sigusr1_wfd,&ch, 1)<  0) {
> +        /* who cares */
> +    }
> +}

We do have signalfd().

> +
> +static void sigusr1_read(void *opaque)
> +{
> +    CPUState *env = opaque;
> +    ssize_t len;
> +    int caught_signal = 0;
> +
> +    do {
> +        char buffer[256];
> +        len = read(env->sigusr1_fd, buffer, sizeof(buffer));
> +        caught_signal = 1;
> +    } while (len>  0);
> +
> +    if (caught_signal) {
> +        if (env->stopped) {

env->stopped is multiplexed among multiple users, so this interferes 
with vm_stop().

We need to make ->stopped a reference count instead.

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function