Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20211004222639.239209-1-nitesh@redhat.com> <e734691b-e9e1-10a0-88ee-73d8fceb50f9@redhat.com>
 <20211005105812.GA130626@fuller.cnet> <96f38a69-2ff8-a78c-a417-d32f1eb742be@redhat.com>
 <20211005132159.GA134926@fuller.cnet>
In-Reply-To: <20211005132159.GA134926@fuller.cnet>
From:   Nitesh Lal <nilal@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 5 Oct 2021 09:49:43 -0400
Message-ID: <CAFki+LmR9bL67D9+dim25J8w3N71eA_BkNcNi3_dEmAB-J553A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] KVM: isolation: retain initial mask for kthread VM worker
To:     Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
Cc:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Nitesh Narayan Lal <nitesh@redhat.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 9:22 AM Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 05, 2021 at 01:25:52PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > On 05/10/21 12:58, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > > > There are other effects of cgroups (e.g. memory accounting) than just the
> > > > cpumask;
> > >
> > > Is kvm-nx-hpage using significant amounts of memory?
> >
> > No, that was just an example (and not a good one indeed, because
> > kvm-nx-hpage is not using a substantial amount of either memory or CPU).
> > But for example vhost also uses cgroup_attach_task_all, so it should have
> > the same issue with SCHED_FIFO?
>
> Yes. Would need to fix vhost as well.
>
> >
> > > > Why doesn't the scheduler move the task to a CPU that is not being hogged by
> > > > vCPU SCHED_FIFO tasks?
> > > Because cpuset placement is enforced:
> >
> > Yes, but I would expect the parent cgroup to include both isolated CPUs (for
> > the vCPU threads) and non-isolated housekeeping vCPUs (for the QEMU I/O
> > thread).
>
> Yes, the parent, but why would that matter? If you are in a child
> cpuset, you are restricted to the child cpuset mask (and not the
> parents).

Yes, and at the time of cpuset_attach, the task is attached to any one of
the CPUs that are in the effective cpumask.

>
> > The QEMU I/O thread is not hogging the CPU 100% of the time, and
> > therefore the nx-recovery thread should be able to run on that CPU.
>
> Yes, but:
>
> 1) The cpumask of the parent thread is not inherited
>
>         set_cpus_allowed_ptr(task, housekeeping_cpumask(HK_FLAG_KTHREAD));
>
> On __kthread_create_on_node should fail (because its cgroup, the one
> inherited from QEMU, contains only isolated CPUs).
>

Just to confirm, do you mean fail only for unbounded kthreads?


-- 
Thanks
Nitesh