[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5 1/1] xen/time: do not decrease steal time after live migration on xen
Hi Boris, On 10/30/2017 09:34 PM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: > On 10/30/2017 04:03 AM, Dongli Zhang wrote: >> After guest live migration on xen, steal time in /proc/stat >> (cpustat[CPUTIME_STEAL]) might decrease because steal returned by >> xen_steal_lock() might be less than this_rq()->prev_steal_time which is >> derived from previous return value of xen_steal_clock(). >> >> For instance, steal time of each vcpu is 335 before live migration. >> >> cpu 198 0 368 200064 1962 0 0 1340 0 0 >> cpu0 38 0 81 50063 492 0 0 335 0 0 >> cpu1 65 0 97 49763 634 0 0 335 0 0 >> cpu2 38 0 81 50098 462 0 0 335 0 0 >> cpu3 56 0 107 50138 374 0 0 335 0 0 >> >> After live migration, steal time is reduced to 312. >> >> cpu 200 0 370 200330 1971 0 0 1248 0 0 >> cpu0 38 0 82 50123 500 0 0 312 0 0 >> cpu1 65 0 97 49832 634 0 0 312 0 0 >> cpu2 39 0 82 50167 462 0 0 312 0 0 >> cpu3 56 0 107 50207 374 0 0 312 0 0 >> >> Since runstate times are cumulative and cleared during xen live migration >> by xen hypervisor, the idea of this patch is to accumulate runstate times >> to global percpu variables before live migration suspend. Once guest VM is >> resumed, xen_get_runstate_snapshot_cpu() would always return the sum of new >> runstate times and previously accumulated times stored in global percpu >> variables. >> >> Similar and more severe issue would impact prior linux 4.8-4.10 as >> discussed by Michael Las at >> https://0xstubs.org/debugging-a-flaky-cpu-steal-time-counter-on-a-paravirtualized-xen-guest, >> which would overflow steal time and lead to 100% st usage in top command >> for linux 4.8-4.10. A backport of this patch would fix that issue. >> >> References: >> https://0xstubs.org/debugging-a-flaky-cpu-steal-time-counter-on-a-paravirtualized-xen-guest >> Signed-off-by: Dongli Zhang <dongli.zhang@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> --- >> Changed since v1: >> * relocate modification to xen_get_runstate_snapshot_cpu >> >> Changed since v2: >> * accumulate runstate times before live migration >> >> Changed since v3: >> * do not accumulate times in the case of guest checkpointing >> >> Changed since v4: >> * allocate array of vcpu_runstate_info to reduce number of memory >> allocation >> >> --- >> drivers/xen/manage.c | 2 ++ >> drivers/xen/time.c | 68 >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- >> include/xen/interface/vcpu.h | 2 ++ >> include/xen/xen-ops.h | 1 + >> 4 files changed, 71 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/xen/manage.c b/drivers/xen/manage.c >> index c425d03..3dc085d 100644 >> --- a/drivers/xen/manage.c >> +++ b/drivers/xen/manage.c >> @@ -72,6 +72,7 @@ static int xen_suspend(void *data) >> } >> >> gnttab_suspend(); >> + xen_accumulate_runstate_time(-1); >> xen_arch_pre_suspend(); >> >> /* >> @@ -84,6 +85,7 @@ static int xen_suspend(void *data) >> : 0); >> >> xen_arch_post_suspend(si->cancelled); >> + xen_accumulate_runstate_time(si->cancelled); > > I am not convinced that the comment above HYPERVISOR_suspend() is > correct. The call can return an error code and so if it returns -EPERM > (which AFAICS it can't now but might in the future) then > xen_accumulate_runstate_time() will do wrong thing. I would split xen_accumulate_runstate_time() into two functions to avoid the -EPERM issue, as one is for saving and another is for accumulation, respectively. Otherwise, can you use xen_accumulate_runstate_time(2) for saving before suspend and xen_accumulate_runstate_time(si->cancelled) after resume? > > >> gnttab_resume(); >> >> if (!si->cancelled) { >> diff --git a/drivers/xen/time.c b/drivers/xen/time.c >> index ac5f23f..cf3afb9 100644 >> --- a/drivers/xen/time.c >> +++ b/drivers/xen/time.c >> @@ -19,6 +19,9 @@ >> /* runstate info updated by Xen */ >> static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct vcpu_runstate_info, xen_runstate); >> >> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(u64[RUNSTATE_max], old_runstate_time); >> +static struct vcpu_runstate_info *runstate_delta; > > I'd move this inside xen_accumulate_runstate_time() since that's the If we split xen_accumulate_runstate_time() into two functions, we would leave runstate_delta as global static. > only function that uses it. And why does it need to be > vcpu_runstate_info and not u64[4]? This was suggested by Juergen to avoid the allocation and reclaim of the second dimensional array as in v4 of this patch? Or would you like to allocate sizeof(u64[4]) * num_possible_cpus() and emulate the 2d array with this 1d array and move the pointer forward sizeof(u64[4]) in each iteration? > >> + >> /* return an consistent snapshot of 64-bit time/counter value */ >> static u64 get64(const u64 *p) >> { >> @@ -47,8 +50,8 @@ static u64 get64(const u64 *p) >> return ret; >> } >> >> -static void xen_get_runstate_snapshot_cpu(struct vcpu_runstate_info *res, >> - unsigned int cpu) >> +static void xen_get_runstate_snapshot_cpu_delta( >> + struct vcpu_runstate_info *res, unsigned int cpu) >> { >> u64 state_time; >> struct vcpu_runstate_info *state; >> @@ -66,6 +69,67 @@ static void xen_get_runstate_snapshot_cpu(struct >> vcpu_runstate_info *res, >> (state_time & XEN_RUNSTATE_UPDATE)); >> } >> >> +static void xen_get_runstate_snapshot_cpu(struct vcpu_runstate_info *res, >> + unsigned int cpu) >> +{ >> + int i; >> + >> + xen_get_runstate_snapshot_cpu_delta(res, cpu); >> + >> + for (i = 0; i < RUNSTATE_max; i++) >> + res->time[i] += per_cpu(old_runstate_time, cpu)[i]; >> +} >> + >> +void xen_accumulate_runstate_time(int action) >> +{ >> + struct vcpu_runstate_info state; >> + int cpu, i; >> + >> + switch (action) { >> + case -1: /* backup runstate time before suspend */ >> + WARN_ON_ONCE(unlikely(runstate_delta)); > > pr_warn_once(), to be consistent with the rest of the file. And then > should you return if this is true? I would prefer to not return if it is true but just warn the administrator that there is memory leakage issue while leaving runstate accumulation works normally. > >> + >> + runstate_delta = kcalloc(num_possible_cpus(), >> + sizeof(*runstate_delta), >> + GFP_KERNEL); >> + if (unlikely(!runstate_delta)) { >> + pr_alert("%s: failed to allocate runstate_delta\n", >> + __func__); > > pr_warn() should be sufficient. Below too. > > Also, as a side question --- can we do kmalloc() at this point? Yes. kmalloc_array() is better than kcalloc, unless we have 2 dimensional array and we need to guarantee the value of first dimension is always 0. > >> + return; >> + } >> + >> + for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) { >> + xen_get_runstate_snapshot_cpu_delta(&state, cpu); >> + memcpy(runstate_delta[cpu].time, state.time, >> + RUNSTATE_max * sizeof(*runstate_delta[cpu].time)); > > sizeof(runstate_delta[cpu].time). > >> + } >> + >> + break; >> + >> + case 0: /* backup runstate time after resume */ >> + if (unlikely(!runstate_delta)) { >> + pr_alert("%s: cannot accumulate runstate time as >> runstate_delta is NULL\n", >> + __func__); >> + return; >> + } >> + >> + for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) { >> + for (i = 0; i < RUNSTATE_max; i++) >> + per_cpu(old_runstate_time, cpu)[i] += >> + runstate_delta[cpu].time[i]; >> + } >> + break; >> + >> + default: /* do not accumulate runstate time for checkpointing */ >> + break; >> + } >> + >> + if (action != -1 && runstate_delta) { >> + kfree(runstate_delta); >> + runstate_delta = NULL; >> + } >> +} >> + >> /* >> * Runstate accounting >> */ >> diff --git a/include/xen/interface/vcpu.h b/include/xen/interface/vcpu.h >> index 98188c8..85e81ce 100644 >> --- a/include/xen/interface/vcpu.h >> +++ b/include/xen/interface/vcpu.h >> @@ -110,6 +110,8 @@ DEFINE_GUEST_HANDLE_STRUCT(vcpu_runstate_info); >> */ >> #define RUNSTATE_offline 3 >> >> +#define RUNSTATE_max 4 > > This file is part of Xen ABI. While this macro technically doesn't > change anything I'd rather have those updates first appear in Xen code. > > Besides, this change leaves vcpu_runstate_info.time[4] definition > intact. I think all RUNSTATE_* macros would need to be moved above > vcpu_runstate_info definition. > > TBH, for purposes of this patch I'd use 4. > > > -boris > > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel > Thank you very much for your suggestions! Dongli Zhang _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |