[PATCH 0/2] powerpc/kvm: Enable running guests on RT Linux

[Scott Wood]

On Fri, 2015-04-03 at 11:07 +0300, Purcareata Bogdan wrote:
> On 03.04.2015 02:11, Scott Wood wrote:
> > On Fri, 2015-03-27 at 19:07 +0200, Purcareata Bogdan wrote:
> >> On 27.02.2015 03:05, Scott Wood wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 2015-02-26 at 14:31 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> >>>> On 02/26/2015 02:02 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 24/02/2015 00:27, Scott Wood wrote:
> >>>>>> This isn't a host PIC driver.  It's guest PIC emulation, some of which
> >>>>>> is indeed not suitable for a rawlock (in particular, openpic_update_irq
> >>>>>> which loops on the number of vcpus, with a loop body that calls
> >>>>>> IRQ_check() which loops over all pending IRQs).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The question is what behavior is wanted of code that isn't quite
> >>>>> RT-ready.  What is preferred, bugs or bad latency?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If the answer is bad latency (which can be avoided simply by not running
> >>>>> KVM on a RT kernel in production), patch 1 can be applied.  If the
> >>>> can be applied *but* makes no difference if applied or not.
> >>>>
> >>>>> answer is bugs, patch 1 is not upstream material.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I myself prefer to have bad latency; if something takes a spinlock in
> >>>>> atomic context, that spinlock should be raw.  If it hurts (latency),
> >>>>> don't do it (use the affected code).
> >>>>
> >>>> The problem, that is fixed by this s/spin_lock/raw_spin_lock/, exists
> >>>> only in -RT. There is no change upstream. In general we fix such things
> >>>> in -RT first and forward the patches upstream if possible. This convert
> >>>> thingy would be possible.
> >>>> Bug fixing comes before latency no matter if RT or not. Converting
> >>>> every lock into a rawlock is not always the answer.
> >>>> Last thing I read from Scott is that he is not entirely sure if this is
> >>>> the right approach or not and patch #1 was not acked-by him either.
> >>>>
> >>>> So for now I wait for Scott's feedback and maybe a backtrace :)
> >>>
> >>> Obviously leaving it in a buggy state is not what we want -- but I lean
> >>> towards a short term "fix" of putting "depends on !PREEMPT_RT" on the
> >>> in-kernel MPIC emulation (which is itself just an optimization -- you
> >>> can still use KVM without it).  This way people don't enable it with RT
> >>> without being aware of the issue, and there's more of an incentive to
> >>> fix it properly.
> >>>
> >>> I'll let Bogdan supply the backtrace.
> >>
> >> So about the backtrace. Wasn't really sure how to "catch" this, so what
> >> I did was to start a 24 VCPUs guest on a 24 CPU board, and in the guest
> >> run 24 netperf flows with an external back to back board of the same
> >> kind. I assumed this would provide the sufficient VCPUs and external
> >> interrupt to expose an alleged culprit.
> >>
> >> With regards to measuring the latency, I thought of using ftrace,
> >> specifically the preemptirqsoff latency histogram. Unfortunately, I
> >> wasn't able to capture any major differences between running a guest
> >> with in-kernel MPIC emulation (with the openpic raw_spinlock_conversion
> >> applied) vs. no in-kernel MPIC emulation. Function profiling
> >> (trace_stat) shows that in the second case there's a far greater time
> >> spent in kvm_handle_exit (100x), but overall, the maximum latencies for
> >> preemptirqsoff don't look that much different.
> >>
> >> Here are the max numbers (preemptirqsoff) for the 24 CPUs, on the host
> >> RT Linux, sorted in descending order, expressed in microseconds:
> >>
> >> In-kernel MPIC		QEMU MPIC
> >> 3975			5105
> >
> > What are you measuring?  Latency in the host, or in the guest?
> 
> This is in the host kernel.

Those are terrible numbers in both cases.  Can you use those tracing
tools to find out what the code path is for QEMU MPIC?

-Scott