Re: [Xen-devel] PV-vNUMA issue: topology is misinterpreted by the guest

[Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 06:18:56PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 07/24/2015 06:09 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> >On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 05:58:29PM +0200, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> >>On Fri, 2015-07-24 at 17:24 +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> >>>On 07/24/2015 05:14 PM, Juergen Gross wrote:
> >>>>On 07/24/2015 04:44 PM, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>In fact, I think that it is the topology, i.e., what comes from MSRs,
> >>>>>that needs to adapt, and follow vNUMA, as much as possible. Do we agree
> >>>>>on this?
> >>>>
> >>>>I think we have to be very careful here. I see two possible scenarios:
> >>>>
> >>>>1) The vcpus are not pinned 1:1 on physical cpus. The hypervisor will
> >>>>     try to schedule the vcpus according to their numa affinity. So they
> >>>>     can change pcpus at any time in case of very busy guests. I don't
> >>>>     think the linux kernel should treat the cpus differently in this
> >>>>     case as it will be in vane regarding the Xen scheduler's activity.
> >>>>     So we should use the "null" topology in this case.
> >>>
> >>>Sorry, the topology should reflect the vcpu<->numa-node relations, of
> >>>course, but nothing else (so flat topolgy in each numa node).
> >>>
> >>Yeah, I was replying to this point saying something like this right
> >>now... Luckily, I've seen this email! :-P
> >>
> >>With this semantic, I fully agree with this.
> >>
> >>>>2) The vcpus of the guest are all pinned 1:1 to physical cpus. The Xen
> >>>>     scheduler can't move vcpus between pcpus, so the linux kernel should
> >>>>     see the real topology of the used pcpus in order to optimize for this
> >>>>     picture.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>Mmm... I did think about this too, but I'm not sure. I see the value of
> >>this of course, and the reason why it makes sense. However, pinning can
> >>change on-line, via `xl vcpu-pin' and stuff. Also migration could make
> >>things less certain, I think. What happens if we build on top of the
> >>initial pinning, and then things change?
> >>
> >>To be fair, there is stuff building on top of the initial pinning
> >>already, e.g., from which physical NUMA node we allocate the memory
> >>relies depends exactly on that. That being said, I'm not sure I'm
> >>comfortable with adding more of this...
> >>
> >>Perhaps introduce an 'immutable_pinning' flag, which will prevent
> >>affinity to be changed, and then bind the topology to pinning only if
> >>that one is set?
> >>
> >>>>>Maybe, there is room for "fixing" this at this level, hooking up inside
> >>>>>the scheduler code... but I'm shooting in the dark, without having check
> >>>>>whether and how this could be really feasible, should I?
> >>>>
> >>>>Uuh, I don't think a change of the scheduler on behalf of Xen is really
> >>>>appreciated. :-)
> >>>>
> >>I'm sure it would (have been! :-)) a true and giant nightmare!! :-D
> >>
> >>>>>One thing I don't like about this approach is that it would potentially
> >>>>>solve vNUMA and other scheduling anomalies, but...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>cpuid instruction is available for user mode as well.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>...it would not do any good for other subsystems, and user level code
> >>>>>and apps.
> >>>>
> >>>>Indeed. I think the optimal solution would be two-fold: give the
> >>>>scheduler the information it is needing to react correctly via a
> >>>>kernel patch not relying on cpuid values and fiddle with the cpuid
> >>>>values from xen tools according to any needs of other subsystems and/or
> >>>>user code (e.g. licensing).
> >>>
> >>So, just to check if I'm understanding is correct: you'd like to add an
> >>abstraction layer, in Linux, like in generic (or, perhaps, scheduling)
> >>code, to hide the direct interaction with CPUID.
> >>Such layer, on baremetal, would just read CPUID while, on PV-ops, it'd
> >>check with Xen/match vNUMA/whatever... Is this that you are saying?
> >>
> >>If yes, I think I like it...
> >
> >I don't think this is workable. For example there are applications
> >which use 'cpuid' and figure out the core/thread and use it for its own
> >scheduling purposes.
> 
> Might be, yes.

There are <cough>databases</cough> that do this.

> 
> The pure cpuid solution won't work for all license related issues.
> 
> Doing it via an abstraction layer in the kernel would work in more than
> 90% of all cases AND would still enable a user to fiddle cpuids
> according to his needs (either topology or license).
> 
> I'd rather have an out-of-the-box kernel solution with special user
> requirements handling than a complex solution making some user
> requirements impossible to meet.

I think there are two issues here - the solution you are trying to come
up with is for PV scenarios.

But the issue I described is for PVH and HVM - where the cpuid is intercepted
by the hypervisor and we can mangle it as we see fit.

I think so? Perhaps I misunderstood?

> 
> 
> Juergen

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel