Re: [PATCH RFC 2/2] kvm: set affinity hint for assigned device msi

[Marcelo Tosatti]

On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 03:12:23PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 11:54:50AM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 08:38:28PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > To forward an interrupt to a vcpu that runs on
> > > a host cpu different from the current one,
> > > we need an ipi which likely will cost us as much
> > > as delivering the interrupt directly to that cpu would.
> > > 
> > > Set irq affinity hint to point there, irq balancer
> > > can then take this into accound and balance
> > > interrupts accordingly.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >  virt/kvm/assigned-dev.c |    8 +++++---
> > >  virt/kvm/irq_comm.c     |   17 ++++++++++++++++-
> > >  2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/virt/kvm/assigned-dev.c b/virt/kvm/assigned-dev.c
> > > index f89f138..b579777 100644
> > > --- a/virt/kvm/assigned-dev.c
> > > +++ b/virt/kvm/assigned-dev.c
> > > @@ -142,9 +142,11 @@ static void deassign_host_irq(struct kvm *kvm,
> > >  		for (i = 0; i < assigned_dev->entries_nr; i++)
> > >  			disable_irq(assigned_dev->host_msix_entries[i].vector);
> > >  
> > > -		for (i = 0; i < assigned_dev->entries_nr; i++)
> > > -			free_irq(assigned_dev->host_msix_entries[i].vector,
> > > -				 (void *)assigned_dev);
> > > +		for (i = 0; i < assigned_dev->entries_nr; i++) {
> > > +			u32 vector = assigned_dev->host_msix_entries[i].vector;
> > > +			irq_set_affinity_hint(vector, NULL);
> > > +			free_irq(vector, (void *)assigned_dev);
> > > +		}
> > >  
> > >  		assigned_dev->entries_nr = 0;
> > >  		kfree(assigned_dev->host_msix_entries);
> > > diff --git a/virt/kvm/irq_comm.c b/virt/kvm/irq_comm.c
> > > index ac8b629..68b1f7c 100644
> > > --- a/virt/kvm/irq_comm.c
> > > +++ b/virt/kvm/irq_comm.c
> > > @@ -22,6 +22,7 @@
> > >  
> > >  #include <linux/kvm_host.h>
> > >  #include <linux/slab.h>
> > > +#include <linux/interrupt.h>
> > >  #include <trace/events/kvm.h>
> > >  
> > >  #include <asm/msidef.h>
> > > @@ -80,6 +81,17 @@ inline static bool kvm_is_dm_lowest_prio(struct kvm_lapic_irq *irq)
> > >  #endif
> > >  }
> > >  
> > > +static void kvm_vcpu_host_irq_hint(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int host_irq)
> > > +{
> > > +	const struct cpumask *mask;
> > > +	/* raw_smp_processor_id() is ok here: if we get preempted we can get a
> > > +	 * wrong value but we don't mind much. */
> > > +	if (host_irq >= 0 && unlikely(vcpu->cpu != raw_smp_processor_id())) {
> > > +		mask = get_cpu_mask(vcpu->cpu);
> > > +		irq_set_affinity_hint(host_irq, mask);
> > > +	}
> > > +}
> > 
> > Unsure about the internals of irq_set_affinity_hint, but AFAICS its
> > exported so that irqbalance in userspace can make a decision.
> 
> Yes. Pls note at the moment there's no hint so irqbalance
> will likely try to move the irq away from vcpu if that
> is doing a lot of work. My patch tries to correct that.
> 
> > If that is the case, then irqbalance update rate should be high enough
> > to catch up with a vcpu migrating betweens cpus (which initially does
> > not appear a sensible arrangement).
> 
> At least for pinned vcpus, that's almost sure to be the case :)

What i mean is that the frequency of a vcpu migrating between cpus
might be higher than what irqbalance can cope with.

> > The decision to have the host interrupt follow the vcpu seems a good
> > one, given that it saves an IPI and is potentially more cache friendly
> > overall.
> 
> > And AFAICS its more intelligent for the device assignment case than
> > anything irqbalance can come up with
> 
> Do you just propose overwriting affinity set by userspace then?

Yes.

> My concern would be to avoid breaking setups some users have,
> with carefully manually optimized affinity for vcpus and device irqs.

They can disable automatic in-kernel affinity.

> 
> > (note it depends on how the APIC is
> > configured, your patch ignores that).
> 
> Could you clarify please? What is meant by 'it' in 'it depends'?

"It" means the target vcpu selection. It depends on how the guest
APIC is programmed.

> Which APIC - host or guest - do you mean, and what are possible APIC
> configurations to consider?

Guest APIC. Guest APIC programmed with round robin would break the
static assignment on your patch.

Configurations to consider, all common ones used for assigned devices?


> > >  int kvm_irq_delivery_to_apic(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_lapic *src,
> > >  		struct kvm_lapic_irq *irq, int host_irq)
> > >  {
> > > @@ -102,6 +114,7 @@ int kvm_irq_delivery_to_apic(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_lapic *src,
> > >  			if (r < 0)
> > >  				r = 0;
> > >  			r += kvm_apic_set_irq(vcpu, irq);
> > > +			kvm_vcpu_host_irq_hint(vcpu, host_irq);
> > >  		} else if (kvm_lapic_enabled(vcpu)) {
> > >  			if (!lowest)
> > >  				lowest = vcpu;
> > > @@ -110,8 +123,10 @@ int kvm_irq_delivery_to_apic(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_lapic *src,
> > >  		}
> > >  	}
> > >  
> > > -	if (lowest)
> > > +	if (lowest) {
> > >  		r = kvm_apic_set_irq(lowest, irq);
> > > +		kvm_vcpu_host_irq_hint(vcpu, host_irq);
> > > +	}
> > >  
> > >  	return r;
> > >  }
> > > -- 
> > > 1.7.5.53.gc233e
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/