Re: [Xen-devel] Dom0 losing interrupts???

[Juergen Gross <juergen.gross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 02/14/11 12:21, George Dunlap wrote:
> My sense is that:
> * Pinning N vcpus to N-M pcpus (where M is a significant fraction of
> N) is just a really bad idea; it would be better just not to do that.
I just wanted to make sure the interrupts are not lost due to the cpupool
operation itself.
So I tried with an extreme configuration and was proved right :-)

> It would be ideal if somehow when dom0's cpu pool shrinks, it
> automatically offlines an appropriate number of vcpus; but it
> shouldn't be difficult for an administrator to do that themselves.
I've sent a patch for the cpupool-numa-split case, which will always remove a
significant number of physical cpus for dom0.

> * On average, a vcpu shouldn't have to wait more than 60ms or so for
> an interrupt.  It seems like there's a non-negligible possibility that
> there's some kind of bug in the interrupt delivery and handling,
> either on the Xen side or the Linux side (or as Jan pointed out, a bug
> in the driver).  In that case, doing something in the scheduler isn't
> actually fixing the problem, it's just making it less likely to
> happen.  (NB that we've had intermittent failures in the xen.org
> testing infrastructure with what looks like might be missed interrupts
> as well -- and those weren't on heavily loaded boxes.)
Any idea what I could do to help? Our larger test machines are not just
idling, but I could use one from time to time without much problems.
It's rather easy for me to reproduce the problem, OTOH it should be easy for
others with a reasonable large machine, too.

> * Even if it is ultimately a scheduler bug, understanding exactly what
> the scheduler is doing and why is key to making a proper fix.  It's
> possible that there's just a simple quirk in the algorithm, such that
> a general fix will make everything work better without needing to
> introduce a special case for hardware interrupts.
> * I'm not opposed in principle to a mechanism which will prioritize
> vcpus awaiting hardware interrupts.  But I am wary of guessing what
> the problem is and then introducing a patch without proper root-cause
> analysis.  Even if it seems to fix the immediate problem, it may
> simply be masking the real problem, and may also cause problems of its
> own.  Behavior of the scheduler is hard enough to understand already,
> and every special case makes it even harder.
I absolutely agree!


Juergen

--
Juergen Gross                 Principal Developer Operating Systems
TSP ES&S SWE OS6                       Telephone: +49 (0) 89 3222 2967
Fujitsu Technology Solutions              e-mail: juergen.gross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Domagkstr. 28                           Internet: ts.fujitsu.com
D-80807 Muenchen                 Company details: ts.fujitsu.com/imprint.html

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel