Virtualization - Apr 2020 - [PATCH] vhost: vsock: don't send pkt when vq is not started

On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 10:06:26AM +0000, Justin He
wrote:
> Hi Stefano
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare at redhat.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2020 4:26 PM
> > To: Justin He <Justin.He at arm.com>
> > Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha at redhat.com>; Michael S. Tsirkin
> > <mst at redhat.com>; Jason Wang <jasowang at redhat.com>;
> > kvm at vger.kernel.org; virtualization at lists.linux-foundation.org;
> > netdev at vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org; Kaly Xin
> > <Kaly.Xin at arm.com>
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] vhost: vsock: don't send pkt when vq is not
started
> >
> > Hi Jia,
> > thanks for the patch, some comments below:
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 10:13:14AM +0800, Jia He wrote:
> > > Ning Bo reported an abnormal 2-second gap when booting Kata
container
> > [1].
> > > The unconditional timeout is caused by
> > VSOCK_DEFAULT_CONNECT_TIMEOUT of
> > > connect at client side. The vhost vsock client tries to connect
an
> > > initlizing virtio vsock server.
> > >
> > > The abnormal flow looks like:
> > > host-userspace           vhost vsock                       guest
vsock
> > > ==============           ===========                      
===========> > > connect()     --------> 
vhost_transport_send_pkt_work()   initializing
> > >    |                     vq->private_data==NULL
> > >    |                     will not be queued
> > >    V
> > > schedule_timeout(2s)
> > >                          vhost_vsock_start()  <---------  
device ready
> > >                          set vq->private_data
> > >
> > > wait for 2s and failed
> > >
> > > connect() again          vq->private_data!=NULL          recv
connecting pkt
> > >
> > > 1. host userspace sends a connect pkt, at that time, guest vsock
is under
> > > initializing, hence the vhost_vsock_start has not been called. So
> > > vq->private_data==NULL, and the pkt is not been queued to send
to guest.
> > > 2. then it sleeps for 2s
> > > 3. after guest vsock finishes initializing, vq->private_data
is set.
> > > 4. When host userspace wakes up after 2s, send connecting pkt
again,
> > > everything is fine.
> > >
> > > This fixes it by checking vq->private_data in
vhost_transport_send_pkt,
> > > and return at once if !vq->private_data. This makes user
connect()
> > > be returned with ECONNREFUSED.
> > >
> > > After this patch, kata-runtime (with vsock enabled) boottime
reduces from
> > > 3s to 1s on ThunderX2 arm64 server.
> > >
> > > [1] https://github.com/kata-containers/runtime/issues/1917
> > >
> > > Reported-by: Ning Bo <n.b at live.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Jia He <justin.he at arm.com>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/vhost/vsock.c | 8 ++++++++
> > >  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vsock.c b/drivers/vhost/vsock.c
> > > index e36aaf9ba7bd..67474334dd88 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/vhost/vsock.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/vhost/vsock.c
> > > @@ -241,6 +241,7 @@ vhost_transport_send_pkt(struct
virtio_vsock_pkt
> > *pkt)
> > >  {
> > >  struct vhost_vsock *vsock;
> > >  int len = pkt->len;
> > > +struct vhost_virtqueue *vq;
> > >
> > >  rcu_read_lock();
> > >
> > > @@ -252,6 +253,13 @@ vhost_transport_send_pkt(struct
virtio_vsock_pkt
> > *pkt)
> > >  return -ENODEV;
> > >  }
> > >
> > > +vq = &vsock->vqs[VSOCK_VQ_RX];
> > > +if (!vq->private_data) {
> >
> > I think is better to use vhost_vq_get_backend():
> >
> > if (!vhost_vq_get_backend(&vsock->vqs[VSOCK_VQ_RX])) {
> > ...
> >
> > This function should be called with 'vq->mutex' acquired as
explained in
> > the comment, but here we can avoid that, because we are not using the
vq,
> > so it is safe, because in vhost_transport_do_send_pkt() we check it
again.
> >
> > Please add a comment explaining that.
> >
> 
> Thanks, vhost_vq_get_backend is better. I chose a 5.3 kernel to develop
> and missed this helper.
:-)
> >
> > As an alternative to this patch, should we kick the send worker when
the
> > device is ready?
> >
> > IIUC we reach the timeout because the send worker (that runs
> > vhost_transport_do_send_pkt()) exits immediately since
'vq->private_data'
> > is NULL, and no one will requeue it.
> >
> > Let's do it when we know the device is ready:
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vsock.c b/drivers/vhost/vsock.c
> > index e36aaf9ba7bd..295b5867944f 100644
> > --- a/drivers/vhost/vsock.c
> > +++ b/drivers/vhost/vsock.c
> > @@ -543,6 +543,11 @@ static int vhost_vsock_start(struct vhost_vsock
> > *vsock)
> >                 mutex_unlock(&vq->mutex);
> >         }
> >
> > +       /* Some packets may have been queued before the device was
started,
> > +        * let's kick the send worker to send them.
> > +        */
> > +       vhost_work_queue(&vsock->dev,
&vsock->send_pkt_work);
> > +
> Yes, it works.
> But do you think a threshold should be set here to prevent the queue
> from being too long? E.g. the client user sends too many connect pkts
> in a short time before the server is completely ready.
When the user call the connect() the socket status is moved to
SS_CONNECTING (see net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c), so another connect() on
the same socket will receive EALREADY error.

If the user uses multiple sockets, the socket layer already check for
any limits, so I don't think we should put a threshold here.
> 
> >         mutex_unlock(&vsock->dev.mutex);
> >         return 0;
> >
> > I didn't test it, can you try if it fixes the issue?
> >
> > I'm not sure which is better...
> I don't know, either. Wait for more comments ?
I prefer the second option, because the device is in a transitional
state and a connect can block (for at most two seconds) until the device is
started.

For the first option, I'm also not sure if ECONNREFUSED is the right error
to return, maybe is better ENETUNREACH.

Cheers,
Stefano

On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 06:25:21PM +0200, Stefano Garzarella
wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 10:06:26AM +0000, Justin He wrote:
> > Hi Stefano
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare at redhat.com>
> > > Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2020 4:26 PM
> > > To: Justin He <Justin.He at arm.com>
> > > Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha at redhat.com>; Michael S.
Tsirkin
> > > <mst at redhat.com>; Jason Wang <jasowang at
redhat.com>;
> > > kvm at vger.kernel.org; virtualization at
lists.linux-foundation.org;
> > > netdev at vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org; Kaly
Xin
> > > <Kaly.Xin at arm.com>
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] vhost: vsock: don't send pkt when vq is
not started
> > >
> > > Hi Jia,
> > > thanks for the patch, some comments below:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 10:13:14AM +0800, Jia He wrote:
> > > > Ning Bo reported an abnormal 2-second gap when booting Kata
container
> > > [1].
> > > > The unconditional timeout is caused by
> > > VSOCK_DEFAULT_CONNECT_TIMEOUT of
> > > > connect at client side. The vhost vsock client tries to
connect an
> > > > initlizing virtio vsock server.
> > > >
> > > > The abnormal flow looks like:
> > > > host-userspace           vhost vsock                      
guest vsock
> > > > ==============           ===========                      
===========> > > > connect()     --------> 
vhost_transport_send_pkt_work()   initializing
> > > >    |                     vq->private_data==NULL
> > > >    |                     will not be queued
> > > >    V
> > > > schedule_timeout(2s)
> > > >                          vhost_vsock_start()  <--------- 
device ready
> > > >                          set vq->private_data
> > > >
> > > > wait for 2s and failed
> > > >
> > > > connect() again          vq->private_data!=NULL         
recv connecting pkt
> > > >
> > > > 1. host userspace sends a connect pkt, at that time, guest
vsock is under
> > > > initializing, hence the vhost_vsock_start has not been
called. So
> > > > vq->private_data==NULL, and the pkt is not been queued to
send to guest.
> > > > 2. then it sleeps for 2s
> > > > 3. after guest vsock finishes initializing,
vq->private_data is set.
> > > > 4. When host userspace wakes up after 2s, send connecting
pkt again,
> > > > everything is fine.
> > > >
> > > > This fixes it by checking vq->private_data in
vhost_transport_send_pkt,
> > > > and return at once if !vq->private_data. This makes user
connect()
> > > > be returned with ECONNREFUSED.
> > > >
> > > > After this patch, kata-runtime (with vsock enabled) boottime
reduces from
> > > > 3s to 1s on ThunderX2 arm64 server.
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://github.com/kata-containers/runtime/issues/1917
> > > >
> > > > Reported-by: Ning Bo <n.b at live.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Jia He <justin.he at arm.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  drivers/vhost/vsock.c | 8 ++++++++
> > > >  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vsock.c b/drivers/vhost/vsock.c
> > > > index e36aaf9ba7bd..67474334dd88 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/vhost/vsock.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/vhost/vsock.c
> > > > @@ -241,6 +241,7 @@ vhost_transport_send_pkt(struct
virtio_vsock_pkt
> > > *pkt)
> > > >  {
> > > >  struct vhost_vsock *vsock;
> > > >  int len = pkt->len;
> > > > +struct vhost_virtqueue *vq;
> > > >
> > > >  rcu_read_lock();
> > > >
> > > > @@ -252,6 +253,13 @@ vhost_transport_send_pkt(struct
virtio_vsock_pkt
> > > *pkt)
> > > >  return -ENODEV;
> > > >  }
> > > >
> > > > +vq = &vsock->vqs[VSOCK_VQ_RX];
> > > > +if (!vq->private_data) {
> > >
> > > I think is better to use vhost_vq_get_backend():
> > >
> > > if (!vhost_vq_get_backend(&vsock->vqs[VSOCK_VQ_RX])) {
> > > ...
> > >
> > > This function should be called with 'vq->mutex'
acquired as explained in
> > > the comment, but here we can avoid that, because we are not using
the vq,
> > > so it is safe, because in vhost_transport_do_send_pkt() we check
it again.
> > >
> > > Please add a comment explaining that.
> > >
> > 
> > Thanks, vhost_vq_get_backend is better. I chose a 5.3 kernel to
develop
> > and missed this helper.
> 
> :-)
> 
> > >
> > > As an alternative to this patch, should we kick the send worker
when the
> > > device is ready?
> > >
> > > IIUC we reach the timeout because the send worker (that runs
> > > vhost_transport_do_send_pkt()) exits immediately since
'vq->private_data'
> > > is NULL, and no one will requeue it.
> > >
> > > Let's do it when we know the device is ready:
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vsock.c b/drivers/vhost/vsock.c
> > > index e36aaf9ba7bd..295b5867944f 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/vhost/vsock.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/vhost/vsock.c
> > > @@ -543,6 +543,11 @@ static int vhost_vsock_start(struct
vhost_vsock
> > > *vsock)
> > >                 mutex_unlock(&vq->mutex);
> > >         }
> > >
> > > +       /* Some packets may have been queued before the device
was started,
> > > +        * let's kick the send worker to send them.
> > > +        */
> > > +       vhost_work_queue(&vsock->dev,
&vsock->send_pkt_work);
> > > +
> > Yes, it works.
> > But do you think a threshold should be set here to prevent the queue
> > from being too long? E.g. the client user sends too many connect pkts
> > in a short time before the server is completely ready.
> 
> When the user call the connect() the socket status is moved to
> SS_CONNECTING (see net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c), so another connect() on
> the same socket will receive EALREADY error.
> 
> If the user uses multiple sockets, the socket layer already check for
> any limits, so I don't think we should put a threshold here.
> 
> > 
> > >         mutex_unlock(&vsock->dev.mutex);
> > >         return 0;
> > >
> > > I didn't test it, can you try if it fixes the issue?
> > >
> > > I'm not sure which is better...
> > I don't know, either. Wait for more comments ?
> 
> I prefer the second option, because the device is in a transitional
> state and a connect can block (for at most two seconds) until the device is
> started.
> 
> For the first option, I'm also not sure if ECONNREFUSED is the right
error
> to return, maybe is better ENETUNREACH.
> 
> Cheers,
> Stefano
IIRC:

ECONNREFUSED is what one gets when connecting to remote a port which does not
yet have a listening socket, so remote sends back RST.
ENETUNREACH is when local network's down, so you can't even send a
connection request.
EHOSTUNREACH is remote network is down.

-- 
MST

On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 03:43:00PM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin
wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 06:25:21PM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 10:06:26AM +0000, Justin He wrote:
> > > Hi Stefano
> > > 
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare at redhat.com>
> > > > Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2020 4:26 PM
> > > > To: Justin He <Justin.He at arm.com>
> > > > Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha at redhat.com>; Michael
S. Tsirkin
> > > > <mst at redhat.com>; Jason Wang <jasowang at
redhat.com>;
> > > > kvm at vger.kernel.org; virtualization at
lists.linux-foundation.org;
> > > > netdev at vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org;
Kaly Xin
> > > > <Kaly.Xin at arm.com>
> > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] vhost: vsock: don't send pkt when
vq is not started
> > > >
> > > > Hi Jia,
> > > > thanks for the patch, some comments below:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 10:13:14AM +0800, Jia He wrote:
> > > > > Ning Bo reported an abnormal 2-second gap when booting
Kata container
> > > > [1].
> > > > > The unconditional timeout is caused by
> > > > VSOCK_DEFAULT_CONNECT_TIMEOUT of
> > > > > connect at client side. The vhost vsock client tries to
connect an
> > > > > initlizing virtio vsock server.
> > > > >
> > > > > The abnormal flow looks like:
> > > > > host-userspace           vhost vsock                   
guest vsock
> > > > > ==============           ===========                   
===========> > > > > connect()     --------> 
vhost_transport_send_pkt_work()   initializing
> > > > >    |                     vq->private_data==NULL
> > > > >    |                     will not be queued
> > > > >    V
> > > > > schedule_timeout(2s)
> > > > >                          vhost_vsock_start() 
<---------   device ready
> > > > >                          set vq->private_data
> > > > >
> > > > > wait for 2s and failed
> > > > >
> > > > > connect() again          vq->private_data!=NULL     
recv connecting pkt
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. host userspace sends a connect pkt, at that time,
guest vsock is under
> > > > > initializing, hence the vhost_vsock_start has not been
called. So
> > > > > vq->private_data==NULL, and the pkt is not been
queued to send to guest.
> > > > > 2. then it sleeps for 2s
> > > > > 3. after guest vsock finishes initializing,
vq->private_data is set.
> > > > > 4. When host userspace wakes up after 2s, send
connecting pkt again,
> > > > > everything is fine.
> > > > >
> > > > > This fixes it by checking vq->private_data in
vhost_transport_send_pkt,
> > > > > and return at once if !vq->private_data. This makes
user connect()
> > > > > be returned with ECONNREFUSED.
> > > > >
> > > > > After this patch, kata-runtime (with vsock enabled)
boottime reduces from
> > > > > 3s to 1s on ThunderX2 arm64 server.
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]
https://github.com/kata-containers/runtime/issues/1917
> > > > >
> > > > > Reported-by: Ning Bo <n.b at live.com>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Jia He <justin.he at arm.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  drivers/vhost/vsock.c | 8 ++++++++
> > > > >  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vsock.c
b/drivers/vhost/vsock.c
> > > > > index e36aaf9ba7bd..67474334dd88 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/vhost/vsock.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/vhost/vsock.c
> > > > > @@ -241,6 +241,7 @@ vhost_transport_send_pkt(struct
virtio_vsock_pkt
> > > > *pkt)
> > > > >  {
> > > > >  struct vhost_vsock *vsock;
> > > > >  int len = pkt->len;
> > > > > +struct vhost_virtqueue *vq;
> > > > >
> > > > >  rcu_read_lock();
> > > > >
> > > > > @@ -252,6 +253,13 @@ vhost_transport_send_pkt(struct
virtio_vsock_pkt
> > > > *pkt)
> > > > >  return -ENODEV;
> > > > >  }
> > > > >
> > > > > +vq = &vsock->vqs[VSOCK_VQ_RX];
> > > > > +if (!vq->private_data) {
> > > >
> > > > I think is better to use vhost_vq_get_backend():
> > > >
> > > > if (!vhost_vq_get_backend(&vsock->vqs[VSOCK_VQ_RX]))
{
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > This function should be called with 'vq->mutex'
acquired as explained in
> > > > the comment, but here we can avoid that, because we are not
using the vq,
> > > > so it is safe, because in vhost_transport_do_send_pkt() we
check it again.
> > > >
> > > > Please add a comment explaining that.
> > > >
> > > 
> > > Thanks, vhost_vq_get_backend is better. I chose a 5.3 kernel to
develop
> > > and missed this helper.
> > 
> > :-)
> > 
> > > >
> > > > As an alternative to this patch, should we kick the send
worker when the
> > > > device is ready?
> > > >
> > > > IIUC we reach the timeout because the send worker (that runs
> > > > vhost_transport_do_send_pkt()) exits immediately since
'vq->private_data'
> > > > is NULL, and no one will requeue it.
> > > >
> > > > Let's do it when we know the device is ready:
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vsock.c b/drivers/vhost/vsock.c
> > > > index e36aaf9ba7bd..295b5867944f 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/vhost/vsock.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/vhost/vsock.c
> > > > @@ -543,6 +543,11 @@ static int vhost_vsock_start(struct
vhost_vsock
> > > > *vsock)
> > > >                 mutex_unlock(&vq->mutex);
> > > >         }
> > > >
> > > > +       /* Some packets may have been queued before the
device was started,
> > > > +        * let's kick the send worker to send them.
> > > > +        */
> > > > +       vhost_work_queue(&vsock->dev,
&vsock->send_pkt_work);
> > > > +
> > > Yes, it works.
> > > But do you think a threshold should be set here to prevent the
queue
> > > from being too long? E.g. the client user sends too many connect
pkts
> > > in a short time before the server is completely ready.
> > 
> > When the user call the connect() the socket status is moved to
> > SS_CONNECTING (see net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c), so another connect() on
> > the same socket will receive EALREADY error.
> > 
> > If the user uses multiple sockets, the socket layer already check for
> > any limits, so I don't think we should put a threshold here.
> > 
> > > 
> > > >         mutex_unlock(&vsock->dev.mutex);
> > > >         return 0;
> > > >
> > > > I didn't test it, can you try if it fixes the issue?
> > > >
> > > > I'm not sure which is better...
> > > I don't know, either. Wait for more comments ?
> > 
> > I prefer the second option, because the device is in a transitional
> > state and a connect can block (for at most two seconds) until the
device is
> > started.
> > 
> > For the first option, I'm also not sure if ECONNREFUSED is the
right error
> > to return, maybe is better ENETUNREACH.
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Stefano
> 
> IIRC:
> 
> ECONNREFUSED is what one gets when connecting to remote a port which does
not
> yet have a listening socket, so remote sends back RST.
> ENETUNREACH is when local network's down, so you can't even send a
> connection request.
> EHOSTUNREACH is remote network is down.
Thanks for the clarification!

I was looking at connect(2) man page and there isn't EHOSTUNREACH in the
ERRORS section :-(

But connect(3p) contains the following that match what you said:
       ECONNRESET
              Remote host reset the connection request.
       ENETUNREACH
              No route to the network is present.
       EHOSTUNREACH
              The  destination host cannot be reached (probably because
              the host is down or a remote router cannot reach it).

So in this case, I think ENETUNREACH should be the best one, since the
device is down and we can't send the connection request, but also
EHOSTUNREACH should fit...

In af_vsock.c we already return ENETUNREACH when the stream is not allowed
or we don't have a transport to use.

Thanks,
Stefano