Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: KVM call minutes for Feb 1

[Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>]

On 02/03/2011 04:11 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 06:34:50PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>    
>> On 2011-02-01 18:20, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>      
>>> On 02/01/2011 11:03 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>        
>>>> On 2011-02-01 17:53, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>>>
>>>>          
>>>>> On 02/01/2011 10:36 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>            
>>>>>> On 2011-02-01 16:54, Chris Wright wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>              
>>>>>>> KVM upstream merge: status, plans, coordination
>>>>>>> - Jan has a git tree, consolidating
>>>>>>> - qemu-kvm io threading is still an issue
>>>>>>> - Anthony wants to just merge
>>>>>>>      - concerns with non-x86 arch and merge
>>>>>>>      - concerns with big-bang patch merge and following stability
>>>>>>> - post 0.14 conversion to glib mainloop, non-upstreamed qemu-kvm will be
>>>>>>>      a problem if it's not there by then
>>>>>>> - testing and nuances are still an issue (e.g. stefan berger's mmio read issue)
>>>>>>> - qemu-kvm still evolving, needs to get sync'd or it will keep diverging
>>>>>>> - 2 implementations of main init, cpu init, Jan has merged them into one
>>>>>>>      - qemu-kvm-x86.c file that's only a few hundred lines
>>>>>>> - review as one patch to see the fundamental difference
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>                
>>>>>> More precisely, my current work flow is to pick some function(s), e.g.
>>>>>> kvm_cpu_exec/kvm_run, and start wondering "What needs to be done to
>>>>>> upstream so that qemu-kvm could use that implementation?". If they
>>>>>> differ, the reasons need to be understood and patched away, either by
>>>>>> fixing/enhancing upstream or simplifying qemu-kvm. Once the upstream
>>>>>> changes are merged back, a qemu-kvm patch is posted to switch to that
>>>>>> version.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any help will be welcome, either via review of my subtle regressions or
>>>>>> on resolving concrete differences.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> E.g. posix-aio-compat.c: Why does qemu-kvm differ here? If it's because
>>>>>> of its own iothread code, can we wrap that away or do we need to
>>>>>> consolidate the threading code first? Or do we need to fix something in
>>>>>> upstream?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>              
>>>>> I bet it's the eventfd thing.  It's arbitrary.  If you've got a small
>>>>> diff post your series, I'd be happy to take a look at it and see what I
>>>>> can explain.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>            
>>>> Looks like it's around signalfd and its emulation:
>>>>
>>>>          
>>> I really meant the compatfd thing.
>>>
>>> signalfd can't really be emulated properly so in upstream we switched to
>>> a pipe() which Avi didn't like.
>>>
>>> But with glib, this all goes away anyway so we should just drop the
>>> qemu-kvm changes and use the upstream version.  Once we enable I/O
>>> thread in qemu.git, we no longer need to use signals for I/O completion
>>> which I think everyone would agree is a better solution.
>>>        
>> Don't understand: If we do not need SIGIO for AIO emulation in threaded
>> mode, why wasn't that stubbed out already? If that helps reducing
>> worries about the signalfd emulation (which is likely a non-issue anyway
>> as anyone with serious workload should run a kernel with such support).
>>      
> qemu-kvm has this modification for performance reasons.
> SIGUSR2 can't be blocked otherwise. See example test case at
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/20817/.
>    

That test-case is not realistic.  That's 10k signals per second.  With 
batching, we're at an I/O op rate that we're not even close to today.  I 
can guarantee that you won't find a real workload were you can actually 
measure the difference.

And keep in mind, the signal notification should go away so having this 
change in qemu-kvm really doesn't make sense.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori