Re: IRQ latency measurements in hypervisor

[Volodymyr Babchuk <Volodymyr_Babchuk@xxxxxxxx>]

Hi Julien,

Julien Grall writes:

> Hi Volodymyr, Stefano,
>
> On 14/01/2021 23:33, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>> + Bertrand, Andrew (see comment on alloc_heap_pages())
>
> Long running hypercalls are usually considered security issues.
>
> In this case, only the control domain can issue large memory
> allocation (2GB at a time). Guest, would only be able to allocate 2MB
> at the time, so from the numbers below, it would only take 1ms max.
>
> So I think we are fine here. Next time, you find a large loop, please
> provide an explanation why they are not security issues (e.g. cannot
> be used by guests) or send an email to the Security Team in doubt.

Sure. In this case I took into account that only control domain can
issue this call, I just didn't stated this explicitly. Next time will
do.

>>> ARMv8 platform. Namely Renesas Rcar H3 SoC on Salvator board.
>
> Which core is it?

Cortex A57

[...]

>> 2. RTDS scheduler. With console disabled, things like "hexdump -v
>>>     /dev/zero" didn't affected the latency so badly, but anyways,
>>>     sometimes I got ~600us spikes. This is not a surprise, because of
>>>     default RTDS configuration. I changed period for DomU from default
>>>     10ms to 100us and things got better: with Dom0 burning CPU I am
>>>     rarely getting max latency of about ~30us with mean latency of ~9us
>>>     and deviation of ~0.5us. On other hand, when I tried to set period
>>>     to 30us, max latency rose up to ~60us.
> In a related topic, I am not entirely sure that all the hypercalls
> would be able to fit in the 100us slice. In particular, the one which
> are touching the P2M and do memory allocation.

I agree with you. In my experiments I didn't found a case with long
running hypercall (apart from mentioned populate_physmap), but of course
there should be cases with such calls.

>
>> This is very interestingi too. Did you get any spikes with the
>> period
>> set to 100us? It would be fantastic if there were none.
>> 
>>> 3. Huge latency spike during domain creation. I conducted some
>>>     additional tests, including use of PV drivers, but this didn't
>>>     affected the latency in my "real time" domain. But attempt to
>>>     create another domain with relatively large memory size of 2GB led
>>>     to huge spike in latency. Debugging led to this call path:
>>>
>>>     XENMEM_populate_physmap -> populate_physmap() ->
>>>     alloc_domheap_pages() -> alloc_heap_pages()-> huge
>>>     "for ( i = 0; i < (1 << order); i++ )" loop.
>
> There are two for loops in alloc_heap_pages() using this syntax. Which
> one are your referring to?

I did some tracing with Lautrebach. It pointed to the first loop and
especially to flush_page_to_ram() call if I remember correctly.

>>>
>>>     This loops handles struct page* for every one of 262144 pages that
>>>     was allocated by calling populate_physmap().
>
> Looking at the domain creation code, 2GB will be split in two extents
> of 1GB. This means, there will be at least a preemption point between
> the allocation of the two extents.

Yes. 1GB is exactly 262144 4KB pages.

[...]

>>> I managed to overcome the issue #3 by commenting out all calls to
>>> populate_one_size() except the populate_one_size(PFN_4K_SHIFT) in
>>> xg_dom_arm.c. This lengthened domain construction, but my "RT" domain
>>> didn't experienced so big latency issues. Apparently all other
>>> hypercalls which are used during domain creation are either fast or
>>> preemptible. No doubts that my hack lead to page tables inflation and
>>> overall performance drop.
>> I think we need to follow this up and fix this. Maybe just by adding
>> a hypercall continuation to the loop.
>
> When I read "hypercall continuation", I read we will return to the
> guest context so it can process interrupts and potentially switch to
> another task.
>
> This means that the guest could issue a second populate_physmap() from
> the vCPU. Therefore any restart information should be part of the 
> hypercall parameters. So far, I don't see how this would be possible.
>
> Even if we overcome that part, this can be easily abuse by a guest as
> the memory is not yet accounted to the domain. Imagine a guest that 
> never request the continuation of the populate_physmap(). So we would
> need to block the vCPU until the allocation is finished.

Moreover, most of the alloc_heap_pages() sits under spinlock, so first
step would be to split this function into smaller atomic parts.

> I think the first step is we need to figure out which part of the
> allocation is slow (see my question above). From there, we can figure 
> out if there is a way to reduce the impact.

I'll do more tracing and will return with more accurate numbers. But as
far as I can see, any loop on 262144 pages will take some time...

-- 
Volodymyr Babchuk at EPAM