Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 0/4] mitigate the per-pCPU blocking list may be too long

[Chao Gao <chao.gao@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 03:24:47AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>(Chao Gao got lost from the recipients list again; re-adding)
>
>>>> On 08.05.17 at 11:13, <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 08/05/17 17:15, Chao Gao wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 04:21:27AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>>> On 03.05.17 at 12:08, <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> On 02/05/17 06:45, Chao Gao wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 05:39:57PM +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
>>>>>>> On 26/04/17 01:52, Chao Gao wrote:
>>>>>>>> I compared the maximum of #entry in one list and #event (adding entry 
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> PI blocking list) with and without the three latter patches. Here
>>>>>>>> is the result:
>>>>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> |               |                      |                    |
>>>>>>>> |    Items      |   Maximum of #entry  |      #event        |
>>>>>>>> |               |                      |                    |
>>>>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> |               |                      |                    |
>>>>>>>> |W/ the patches |         6            |       22740        |
>>>>>>>> |               |                      |                    |
>>>>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> |               |                      |                    |
>>>>>>>> |W/O the patches|        128           |       46481        |
>>>>>>>> |               |                      |                    |
>>>>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any chance you could trace how long the list traversal took?  It would
>>>>>>> be good for future reference to have an idea what kinds of timescales
>>>>>>> we're talking about.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I made a simple test to get the time consumed by the list traversal.
>>>>>> Apply below patch and create one hvm guest with 128 vcpus and a 
>>>>>> passthrough 
>> 40 NIC.
>>>>>> All guest vcpu are pinned to one pcpu. collect data by
>>>>>> 'xentrace -D -e 0x82000 -T 300 trace.bin' and decode data by
>>>>>> xentrace_format. When the list length is about 128, the traversal time
>>>>>> is in the range of 1750 cycles to 39330 cycles. The physical cpu's
>>>>>> frequence is 1795.788MHz, therefore the time consumed is in the range of 
>>>>>> 1us
>>>>>> to 22us. If 0.5ms is the upper bound the system can tolerate, at most
>>>>>> 2900 vcpus can be added into the list.
>>>>>
>>>>> Great, thanks Chao Gao, that's useful.
>>>>
>>>> Looks like Chao Gao has been dropped ...
>>>>
>>>>>  I'm not sure a fixed latency --
>>>>> say 500us -- is the right thing to look at; if all 2900 vcpus arranged
>>>>> to have interrupts staggered at 500us intervals it could easily lock up
>>>>> the cpu for nearly a full second.  But I'm having trouble formulating a
>>>>> good limit scenario.
>>>>>
>>>>> In any case, 22us should be safe from a security standpoint*, and 128
>>>>> should be pretty safe from a "make the common case fast" standpoint:
>>>>> i.e., if you have 128 vcpus on a single runqueue, the IPI wake-up
>>>>> traffic will be the least of your performance problems I should think.
>>>>>
>>>>>  -George
>>>>>
>>>>> * Waiting for Jan to contradict me on this one. :-)
>>>>
>>>> 22us would certainly be fine, if this was the worst case scenario.
>>>> I'm not sure the value measured for 128 list entries can be easily
>>>> scaled to several thousands of them, due cache and/or NUMA
>>>> effects. I continue to think that we primarily need theoretical
>>>> proof of an upper boundary on list length being enforced, rather
>>>> than any measurements or randomized balancing. And just to be
>>>> clear - if someone overloads their system, I do not see a need to
>>>> have a guaranteed maximum list traversal latency here. All I ask
>>>> for is that list traversal time scales with total vCPU count divided
>>>> by pCPU count.
>>> 
>>> Thanks, Jan & George.
>>> 
>>> I think it is more clear to me about what should I do next step.
>>> 
>>> In my understanding, we should distribute the wakeup interrupts like
>>> this:
>>> 1. By default, distribute it to the local pCPU ('local' means the vCPU
>>> is on the pCPU) to make the common case fast.
>>> 2. With the list grows to a point where we think it may consumers too
>>> much time to traverse the list, also distribute wakeup interrupt to local
>>> pCPU, ignoring admin intentionally overloads their system.
>>> 3. When the list length reachs the theoretic average maximum (means
>>> maximal vCPU count divided by pCPU count), distribute wakeup interrupt
>>> to another underutilized pCPU.
>> 
>> By "maximal vCPU count" do you mean, "total number of active vcpus on
>> the system"?  Or some other theoretical maximum vcpu count (e.g., 32k
>> domans * 512 vcpus each or something)?
>
>The former.

Ok. Actually I meant the latter. But now, I realize I was wrong.

>
>> What about saying that the limit of vcpus for any given pcpu will be:
>>  (v_tot / p_tot) + K
>> where v_tot is the total number of vcpus on the system, p_tot is the
>> total number of pcpus in the system, and K is a fixed number (such as
>> 128) such that 1) the additional time walking the list is minimal, and
>> 2) in the common case we should never come close to reaching that number?
>> 
>> Then the algorithm for choosing which pcpu to have the interrupt
>> delivered to would be:
>>  1. Set p = current_pcpu
>>  2. if len(list(p)) < v_tot / p_tot + k, choose p
>>  3. Otherwise, choose another p and goto 2
>> 
>> The "choose another p" could be random / pseudorandom selection, or it
>> could be some other mechanism (rotate, look for pcpus nearby on the
>> topology, choose the lowest one, &c).  But as long as we check the
>> length before assigning it, it should satisfy Jan.

Very clear and helpful. Othewise, I may need spending several months to
reach this solution. Thanks, George. :)

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