On 10/30/2018 02:46 PM, Michal Privoznik wrote:
On 10/30/2018 01:55 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 10:32:08AM +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 11:08:45AM +0100, Michal Privoznik wrote:
>>> On 10/30/2018 10:35 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 09:13:50AM +0100, Michal Privoznik wrote:
>>>>> On 10/29/2018 06:34 PM, Marc Hartmayer wrote:
>>>>>> Introduce caching whether /dev/kvm is usable as the QEMU
user:QEMU
>>>>>> group. This reduces the overhead of the QEMU capabilities cache
>>>>>> lookup. Before this patch there were many fork() calls used for
>>>>>> checking whether /dev/kvm is accessible. Now we store the result
>>>>>> whether /dev/kvm is accessible or not and we only need to re-run
the
>>>>>> virFileAccessibleAs check if the ctime of /dev/kvm has changed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Suggested-by: Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange(a)redhat.com>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Marc Hartmayer <mhartmay(a)linux.ibm.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> src/qemu/qemu_capabilities.c | 54
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>>>>>> 1 file changed, 52 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/src/qemu/qemu_capabilities.c
b/src/qemu/qemu_capabilities.c
>>>>>> index e228f52ec0bb..85516954149b 100644
>>>>>> --- a/src/qemu/qemu_capabilities.c
>>>>>> +++ b/src/qemu/qemu_capabilities.c
>>>>>> @@ -3238,6 +3238,10 @@ struct _virQEMUCapsCachePriv {
>>>>>> virArch hostArch;
>>>>>> unsigned int microcodeVersion;
>>>>>> char *kernelVersion;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + /* cache whether /dev/kvm is usable as runUid:runGuid */
>>>>>> + virTristateBool kvmUsable;
>>>>>> + time_t kvmCtime;
>>>>>> };
>>>>>> typedef struct _virQEMUCapsCachePriv virQEMUCapsCachePriv;
>>>>>> typedef virQEMUCapsCachePriv *virQEMUCapsCachePrivPtr;
>>>>>> @@ -3824,6 +3828,52 @@ virQEMUCapsSaveFile(void *data,
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +/* Determine whether '/dev/kvm' is usable as QEMU
user:QEMU group. */
>>>>>> +static bool
>>>>>> +virQEMUCapsKVMUsable(virQEMUCapsCachePrivPtr priv)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> + struct stat sb;
>>>>>> + static const char *kvm_device = "/dev/kvm";
>>>>>> + virTristateBool value;
>>>>>> + virTristateBool cached_value = priv->kvmUsable;
>>>>>> + time_t kvm_ctime;
>>>>>> + time_t cached_kvm_ctime = priv->kvmCtime;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + if (stat(kvm_device, &sb) < 0) {
>>>>>> + virReportSystemError(errno,
>>>>>> + _("Failed to stat %s"),
kvm_device);
>>>>>> + return false;
>>>>>> + }
>>>>>> + kvm_ctime = sb.st_ctime;
>>>>>
>>>>> This doesn't feel right. /dev/kvm ctime is changed every time
qemu is
>>>>> started or powered off (try running stat over it before and after a
>>>>> domain is started/shut off). So effectively we will fork more often
than
>>>>> we would think. Should we cache inode number instead? Because for
all
>>>>> that we care is simply if the file is there.
>>>>
>>>> Urgh, that is a bit strange and not the usual semantics for timestamps
:-(
>>>
>>> Indeed.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> We can't stat the inode - the code was explicitly trying to cope with
the
>>>> way /dev/kvm can change permissions when udev rules get applied. We
would
>>>> have to compare the user, group, permissions mask and even ACL, or a
hash
>>>> of those.
>>>
>>> Well, we can use ctime as suggested and post a patch for kernel to fix
>>> ctime behaviour. Until the patch is merged our behaviour would be
>>> suboptimal, but still better than it is now.
>>
>> I guess lets talk to KVM team for their input on this and then decide
>> what todo.
>
> Hmm, I wonder if it is not actually a kernel problem, but rather something
> in userspace genuinely touching the device in a way that caues these
> timestamps to be updated.
>
It is kernel problem. In my testing, the moment I call:
ioctl(kvm, KVM_CREATE_VM, 0);
Okay, I have to retract this claim. 'udevadm monitor' shows some events:
KERNEL[3631.129645] change /devices/virtual/misc/kvm (misc)
UDEV [3631.130816] change /devices/virtual/misc/kvm (misc)
and stopping udevd leaves all three times untouched. So it is udev after
all. I just don't know how to find the rule that is causing the issue.
Anyway, as for this patch, I think we can merge it in the end, can't we?
Michal