DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 22FBE81DE1
Subject: Re: [patch 3/3] x86: kvm guest side support for KVM_HC_RT_PRIO
 hypercall\
To: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>, mingo@redhat.com,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
References: <951aaa3f-b20d-6f67-9454-f193f4445fc7@redhat.com>
 <20170923134114.qdfdegrd6afqrkut@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <855950672.7912001.1506258344142.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com>
 <20170925025751.GB30813@amt.cnet>
 <20170925091316.bnwpiscs2bvpdxk5@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <00ff8cbf-4e41-a950-568c-3bd95e155d4b@redhat.com>
 <20170926224925.GA9119@amt.cnet>
 <6f4afefd-8726-13ff-371e-0d3896b4cf6a@redhat.com>
 <20170928004452.GA30040@amt.cnet>
 <10635834-459a-9ec1-624d-febd6b5af243@redhat.com>
 <20170928213508.GA14053@amt.cnet>
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <06b714d8-7b66-6e03-a992-e359241abf84@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 10:18:25 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20170928213508.GA14053@amt.cnet>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1591
Lines: 34

On 28/09/2017 23:35, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 09:22:02AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> On 28/09/2017 02:44, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>>>> Again: if you have many interruptions, it's not a flaw in KVM or QEMU's
>>>> design, it's just that someone is doing something stupid.  It could be
>>>> the guest (e.g. unnecessary devices or daemons as in the example above),
>>>> QEMU (e.g. the RTC emulation used to trigger QEMU timers twice a second
>>>> just to increment the clock), or the management (e.g. polling "is the VM
>>>> running" 50 times per second).  But it can and must be fixed.
>>>
>>> No, i mean you can run anything in VCPU-0 (it is valid to do that).
>>> And that "anything" can generate 1 interrupt per second, 1000 or 10.000
>>> interrupts per second. Which are all valid things to be done.
>>>
>>> "I can't run a kernel compilation on VCPU-0 because that will impact
>>> latency on the realtime VCPU-1" is not acceptable.
>>
>> That shouldn't happen.  Sources of frequent interruptions have all been
>> fixed or moved outside the main thread.
>>
>> If there are more left, report the bug and we'll see how to fix it in
>> userspace.
> 
> What should not happen? The generation of 10.000 interrupts per second
> (say disk IO completion) on a given workload ?

If you know you have this kind disk workload, you must use virtio-blk or
virtio-scsi with iothreads and place the iothreads on their own physical
CPUs.

Among "run arbitrary workloads", "run real-time workloads", "pack stuff
into as few physical CPUs as possible", you can only pick two.

Paolo