[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [libvirt] [PATCH] Temporarily shutoff CPUSET cgroup in libvirt.



At 09/22/2012 03:04 AM, Eric Blake Wrote:
> On 09/21/2012 02:20 AM, Tang Chen wrote:
>> When a cpu or memory is offlined and onlined again, cgroup will not
>> recover any corresponding values. This is a problem in kernel.
>> Do not use CPUSET cgroup to limit threads using cpu and memory until
>> the problem is fixed in kernel.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Tang Chen <tangchen cn fujitsu com>
>> ---
>>  src/qemu/qemu.conf   |    5 ++++-
>>  src/qemu/qemu_conf.c |    7 ++++++-
>>  src/util/cgroup.c    |    3 +--
>>  3 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/src/qemu/qemu.conf b/src/qemu/qemu.conf
>> index 18105ca..6bf7290 100644
>> --- a/src/qemu/qemu.conf
>> +++ b/src/qemu/qemu.conf
>> @@ -211,7 +211,10 @@
>>  # can be mounted in different locations. libvirt will detect
>>  # where they are located.
>>  #
>> -#cgroup_controllers = [ "cpu", "devices", "memory", "blkio", "cpuset", "cpuacct" ]
>> +# When a cpu or memory is offlined and onlined again, cgroup will not
>> +# recover any corresponding values. This is a problem in kernel.
>> +# So DO NOT use cpuset cgroup until this problem is fixed in kernel.
>> +#cgroup_controllers = [ "cpu", "devices", "memory", "blkio", "cpuacct" ]
> 
> We ought to list which versions of the kernel are known to have the bug
> (that is, say something like 'at least through kernel 3.6'); when we
> finally know which kernel version fixes the bugs in the cpuset
> controller, then we can update the text again to give the user better
> advice on whether they want to be using this.
> 
> I'm torn on whether to take this patch prior to 0.10.2 - it makes sense
> to take (that is, the kernel is buggy, and we cause degraded performance
> as a result of the kernel bug any time the system goes through S3), but
> it's rather late, having missed rc2, for such a major change in default
> functionality.  Am I correct, though, that you can manually edit
> /etc/libvirt/qemu.conf to re-enable the use of cpuset even on a buggy
> kernel, for further testing the issues?
> 
>>  
>>  # This is the basic set of devices allowed / required by
>>  # all virtual machines.
>> diff --git a/src/qemu/qemu_conf.c b/src/qemu/qemu_conf.c
>> index 91a56f1..80b0787 100644
>> --- a/src/qemu/qemu_conf.c
>> +++ b/src/qemu/qemu_conf.c
>> @@ -397,12 +397,17 @@ int qemudLoadDriverConfig(struct qemud_driver *driver,
>>              driver->cgroupControllers |= (1 << ctl);
>>          }
>>      } else {
>> +        /*
>> +         * When a cpu or memory is offlined and onlined again, cgroup will not
>> +         * recover any corresponding values. This is a problem in kernel.
>> +         * Do not use CPUSET cgroup to limit threads using cpu and memory until
>> +         * the problem is fixed in kernel.
>> +         */
>>          driver->cgroupControllers =
>>              (1 << VIR_CGROUP_CONTROLLER_CPU) |
>>              (1 << VIR_CGROUP_CONTROLLER_DEVICES) |
>>              (1 << VIR_CGROUP_CONTROLLER_MEMORY) |
>>              (1 << VIR_CGROUP_CONTROLLER_BLKIO) |
>> -            (1 << VIR_CGROUP_CONTROLLER_CPUSET) |
>>              (1 << VIR_CGROUP_CONTROLLER_CPUACCT);
> 
> Rather than hard-coding the non-use of cpuset as our default, can we do
> something like a uname() probe or some other clue of whether we have a
> buggy kernel?
> 
>> +++ b/src/util/cgroup.c
>> @@ -543,8 +543,7 @@ static int virCgroupMakeGroup(virCgroupPtr parent, virCgroupPtr group,
>>          /* We need to control cpu bandwidth for each vcpu now */
>>          if ((flags & VIR_CGROUP_VCPU) &&
>>              (i != VIR_CGROUP_CONTROLLER_CPU &&
>> -             i != VIR_CGROUP_CONTROLLER_CPUACCT &&
>> -             i != VIR_CGROUP_CONTROLLER_CPUSET)) {
>> +             i != VIR_CGROUP_CONTROLLER_CPUACCT)) {
>>              /* treat it as unmounted and we can use virCgroupAddTask */
>>              VIR_FREE(group->controllers[i].mountPoint);
>>              continue;
> 
> Is this hunk necessary?  In other words, don't we just gracefully skip
> making per-vcpu groups for any controller that was not mounted, or do we
> loudly fail if all of these controllers are not present?

We have checked whether the controller was mounted before this code in this
function.

If all of these controllers are not present, this function don't fails now.
It will fail later, and doesn't cause any problem. So I agree that this
function fails if all of these controllers are not present. It should
be fixed in another patch.

Thanks
Wen Congyang


> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> libvir-list mailing list
> libvir-list redhat com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]