On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 05:55:36PM -0400, John Ferlan wrote:
>
>
> On 10/17/18 10:15 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > MTTCG is the new multi-threaded impl of TCG which follows
> > KVM in having one host OS thread per vCPU. Historically
> > we have discarded all PIDs reported for TCG guests, but
> > we must now selectively honour this data.
> >
> > We don't have anything in the domain XML that indicates
> > whether a guest is using TCG or MTTCG. While QEMU does
> > have an option (-accel tcg,thread=single|multi), it is
> > not desirable to expose this in libvirt. QEMU will
> > automatically use MTTCG when the host/guest architecture
> > pairing is known to be safe. Only developers of QEMU TCG
> > have a strong reason to override this logic.
> >
> > Thus we use two sanity checks to decide if the vCPU
> > PID information is usable. First we see if the PID
> > duplicates the main emulator PID, and second we see
> > if the PID duplicates any other vCPUs.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > src/qemu/qemu_domain.c | 81 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
> > 1 file changed, 51 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/src/qemu/qemu_domain.c b/src/qemu/qemu_domain.c
> > index f00f1b3fdb..c7a0c03e3f 100644
> > --- a/src/qemu/qemu_domain.c
> > +++ b/src/qemu/qemu_domain.c
> > @@ -10326,9 +10326,10 @@ qemuDomainRefreshVcpuInfo(virQEMUDriverPtr driver,
> > qemuDomainVcpuPrivatePtr vcpupriv;
> > qemuMonitorCPUInfoPtr info = NULL;
> > size_t maxvcpus = virDomainDefGetVcpusMax(vm->def);
> > - size_t i;
> > + size_t i, j;
> > bool hotplug;
> > bool fast;
> > + bool validTIDs = true;
> > int rc;
> > int ret = -1;
> >
> > @@ -10336,6 +10337,8 @@ qemuDomainRefreshVcpuInfo(virQEMUDriverPtr driver,
> > fast = virQEMUCapsGet(QEMU_DOMAIN_PRIVATE(vm)->qemuCaps,
> > QEMU_CAPS_QUERY_CPUS_FAST);
> >
> > + VIR_DEBUG("Maxvcpus %zu hotplug %d fast query %d", maxvcpus, hotplug, fast);
> > +
> > if (qemuDomainObjEnterMonitorAsync(driver, vm, asyncJob) < 0)
> > return -1;
> >
> > @@ -10348,39 +10351,57 @@ qemuDomainRefreshVcpuInfo(virQEMUDriverPtr driver,
> > if (rc < 0)
> > goto cleanup;
> >
> > + /*
> > + * The query-cpus[-fast] commands return information
> > + * about the vCPUs, including the OS level PID that
> > + * is executing the vCPU.
> > + *
> > + * For KVM there is always a 1-1 mapping between
> > + * vCPUs and host OS PIDs.
> > + *
> > + * For TCG things are a little more complicated.
> > + *
> > + * - In some cases the vCPUs will all have the same
> > + * PID as the main emulator thread.
> > + * - In some cases the first vCPU will have a distinct
> > + * PID, but other vCPUs will share the emulator thread
> > + *
> > + * For MTTCG, things work the same as KVM, with each
> > + * vCPU getting its own PID.
> > + *
> > + * We use the Host OS PIDs for doing vCPU pinning
> > + * and reporting. The TCG data reporting will result
> > + * in bad behaviour such as pinning the wrong PID.
> > + * We must thus detect and discard bogus PID info
> > + * from TCG, while still honouring the modern MTTCG
> > + * impl which we can support.
> > + */
> > + for (i = 0; i < maxvcpus && validTIDs; i++) {
> > + if (info[i].tid == vm->pid) {
> > + VIR_DEBUG("vCPU[%zu] PID %llu duplicates process",
> > + i, (unsigned long long)info[i].tid);
> > + validTIDs = false;
> > + }
> > +
>
> If !validTIDs does the next loop matter? IOW:
>
> Should the above section add a "continue;" since the loop exit would
> force the exit?
Mostly I wanted to ensure that we logged all the vCPU pids and it
won't impose an unreasonable performance impact by doing so.
> Beyond that the logic and comments look reasonable. I assume since
> domain XML doesn't care whether MTTCG or TCG is used and things are
> handled under the covers by QEMU that means there's no migration or
> save/restore issues. Of course you have a much deeper understanding of
> the QEMU code than I do!
>
> The one other question I'd have is should validTIDs setting be done just
> once and saved perhaps in the domain private block? There is more than 1
> caller (and *Launch can call twice). It's not like it's going to change,
> right? So doing the same loop from a hotplug path won't matter nor would
> subsequent reconnects or attaches. So perhaps the validTIDs should be a
> tristate that only needs to be checked when the value is UNKNOWN. It's
> not like the loop is that expensive since it's only numeric comparisons,
> so it doesn't matter. I suppose I can be easily convinced taking this
> route would be fine, but figured I'd ask.
AFAIK, this can only be called once per running VM for each libvirtd
run, so I dont see need to do any more advanced caching.
Regards,
Daniel
--
|: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
