Hi Igor and Sean, On 1/20/23 10:35 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote: > On Fri, Jan 20, 2023, Igor Mammedov wrote: >> On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 05:55:11 -0800 >> "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> Hi Igor and Thomas, >>> >>> Thank you for your review! >>> >>> On 1/19/23 1:12 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >>>> On Mon, Jan 16 2023 at 15:55, Igor Mammedov wrote: >>>>> "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>> Fix this by preventing the use of mwait idle state in the vCPU offline >>>>>> play_dead() path for any hypervisor, even if mwait support is >>>>>> available. >>>>> >>>>> if mwait is enabled, it's very likely guest to have cpuidle >>>>> enabled and using the same mwait as well. So exiting early from >>>>> mwait_play_dead(), might just punt workflow down: >>>>> native_play_dead() >>>>> ... >>>>> mwait_play_dead(); >>>>> if (cpuidle_play_dead()) <- possible mwait here >>>>> hlt_play_dead(); >>>>> >>>>> and it will end up in mwait again and only if that fails >>>>> it will go HLT route and maybe transition to VMM. >>>> >>>> Good point. >>>> >>>>> Instead of workaround on guest side, >>>>> shouldn't hypervisor force VMEXIT on being uplugged vCPU when it's >>>>> actually hot-unplugging vCPU? (ex: QEMU kicks vCPU out from guest >>>>> context when it is removing vCPU, among other things) >>>> >>>> For a pure guest side CPU unplug operation: >>>> >>>> guest$ echo 0 >/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu$N/online >>>> >>>> the hypervisor is not involved at all. The vCPU is not removed in that >>>> case. >>>> >>> >>> Agreed, and this is indeed the scenario I was targeting with this patch, >>> as opposed to vCPU removal from the host side. I'll add this clarification >>> to the commit message. > > Forcing HLT doesn't solve anything, it's perfectly legal to passthrough HLT. I > guarantee there are use cases that passthrough HLT but _not_ MONITOR/MWAIT, and > that passthrough all of them. > >> commit message explicitly said: >> "which prevents the hypervisor from running other vCPUs or workloads on the >> corresponding pCPU." >> >> and that implies unplug on hypervisor side as well. >> Why? That's because when hypervisor exposes mwait to guest, it has to reserve/pin >> a pCPU for each of present vCPUs. And you can safely run other VMs/workloads >> on that pCPU only after it's not possible for it to be reused by VM where >> it was used originally. > > Pinning isn't strictly required from a safety perspective. The latency of context > switching may suffer due to wake times, but preempting a vCPU that it's C1 (or > deeper) won't cause functional problems. Passing through an entire socket > (or whatever scope triggers extra fun) might be a different story, but pinning > isn't strictly required. > > That said, I 100% agree that this is expected behavior and not a bug. Letting the > guest execute MWAIT or HLT means the host won't have perfect visibility into guest > activity state. > > Oversubscribing a pCPU and exposing MWAIT and/or HLT to vCPUs is generally not done > precisely because the guest will always appear busy without extra effort on the > host. E.g. KVM requires an explicit opt-in from userspace to expose MWAIT and/or > HLT. > > If someone really wants to effeciently oversubscribe pCPUs and passthrough MWAIT, > then their best option is probably to have a paravirt interface so that the guest > can tell the host its offlining a vCPU. Barring that the host could inspect the > guest when preempting a vCPU to try and guesstimate how much work the vCPU is > actually doing in order to make better scheduling decisions. > >> Now consider following worst (and most likely) case without unplug >> on hypervisor side: >> >> 1. vm1mwait: pin pCPU2 to vCPU2 >> 2. vm1mwait: guest$ echo 0 >/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu2/online >> -> HLT -> VMEXIT >> -- >> 3. vm2mwait: pin pCPU2 to vCPUx and start VM >> 4. vm2mwait: guest OS onlines Vcpu and starts using it incl. >> going into idle=>mwait state >> -- >> 5. vm1mwait: it still thinks that vCPU is present it can rightfully do: >> guest$ echo 1 >/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu2/online >> -- >> 6.1 best case vm1mwait online fails after timeout >> 6.2 worse case: vm2mwait does VMEXIT on vCPUx around time-frame when >> vm1mwait onlines vCPU2, the online may succeed and then vm2mwait's >> vCPUx will be stuck (possibly indefinitely) until for some reason >> VMEXIT happens on vm1mwait's vCPU2 _and_ host decides to schedule >> vCPUx on pCPU2 which would make vm1mwait stuck on vCPU2. >> So either way it's expected behavior. >> >> And if there is no intention to unplug vCPU on hypervisor side, >> then VMEXIT on play_dead is not really necessary (mwait is better >> then HLT), since hypervisor can't safely reuse pCPU elsewhere and >> VCPU goes into deep sleep within guest context. >> >> PS: >> The only case where making HLT/VMEXIT on play_dead might work out, >> would be if new workload weren't pinned to the same pCPU nor >> used mwait (i.e. host can migrate it elsewhere and schedule >> vCPU2 back on pCPU2). That makes sense. Thank you both for the detailed explanation! Let's drop this patch. Regards, Srivatsa VMware Photon OS _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
