Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/1] monitor: increase amount of data for monitor to read

[Denis V. Lunev]

On 05/03/2017 02:29 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> "Denis V. Lunev" <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> On 05/02/2017 07:48 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 05:36:30PM +0100, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
>>>> * Markus Armbruster (address@hidden) wrote:
>>>>> "Denis V. Lunev" <address@hidden> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 05/02/2017 05:43 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>>>>>> "Denis V. Lunev" <address@hidden> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Right now QMP and HMP monitors read 1 byte at a time from the socket, 
>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>> is very inefficient. With 100+ VMs on the host this easily reasults in
>>>>>>>> a lot of unnecessary system calls and CPU usage in the system.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This patch changes the amount of data to read to 4096 bytes, which 
>>>>>>>> matches
>>>>>>>> buffer size on the channel level. Fortunately, monitor protocol is
>>>>>>>> synchronous right now thus we should not face side effects in reality.
>>>>>>> Can you explain briefly why this relies on "synchronous"?  I've spent
>>>>>>> all of two seconds on the question myself...
>>>>>> Each command is processed in sequence as it appears in the
>>>>>> channel. The answer to the command is sent and only after that
>>>>>> next command is processed.
>>>>> Yes, that's how QMP works.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Theoretically tith asynchronous processing we can have some side
>>>>>> effects due to changed buffer size.
>>>>> What kind of side effects do you have in mind?
>>>>>
>>>>> It's quite possible that this obviously inefficient way to read had some
>>>>> deep reason back when it was created.  Hmm, git-blame is our friend:
>>>>>
>>>>> commit c62313bbdc48f72e93fa8196f2fff96ba35e4e9d
>>>>> Author: Jan Kiszka <address@hidden>
>>>>> Date:   Fri Dec 4 14:05:29 2009 +0100
>>>>>
>>>>>     monitor: Accept input only byte-wise
>>>>>     
>>>>>     This allows to suspend command interpretation and execution
>>>>>     synchronously, e.g. during migration.
>>>>>     
>>>>>     Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka <address@hidden>
>>>>>     Signed-off-by: Anthony Liguori <address@hidden>
>>>> I don't think I understand why that's a problem; if we read more bytes,
>>>> we're not going to interpret them and execute them until after the previous
>>>> command returns are we?
>>> Actually it sees we might do, due to the way the "migrate" command works
>>> in HMP when you don't give the '-d' flag.
>>>
>>> Most monitors commands will block the caller until they are finished,
>>> but "migrate" is different. The hmp_migrate() method will return
>>> immediately, but we call monitor_suspend() to block processing of
>>> further commands. If another command has already been read off
>>> the wire though (due to "monitor_read" having a buffer that contains
>>> multiple commands), we would in fact start processing this command
>>> despite having suspended the monitor.
>>>
>>> This is only a problem, however, if the client app has issued "migrate"
>>> followed by another command, at the same time without waiting for the
>>> respond to "migrate". So in practice the only way you'd hit the bug
>>> is probably if you just cut+paste a big chunk of commands into the
>>> monitor at once without waiting for completion and one of the commands
>>> was "migrate" without "-d".
>>>
>>> Still, I think we would need to figure out a proper fix for this before
>>> we could increase the buffer size.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Daniel
>> There is one thing, which simplifies things a lot.
>> - suspend_cnt can be increased only from 2 places:
>>   1) monitor_event(), which is called for real HMP monitor only
>>
>>   2) monitor_suspend(), which can increment suspend_cnt
>>       only if mon->rs != NULL, which also means that the
>>       monitor is specifically configured HMP monitor.
> I think you're right.  Monitor member suspend_cnt could use a comment.
>
> If there are more members that apply only to HMP, we should collect them
> in a MonitorHMP struct, similar to MonitorQMP.
>
I think that this make sense even if this will be a single member as
the readability would be improved.


>> So, we can improve the patch (for now) with the following
>> tweak:
>>
>> static int monitor_can_read(void *opaque)
>> {
>>     Monitor *mon = opaque;
>>    
>>     if (monitor_is_qmp(mon))
>>         return 4096;   
>>     return (mon->suspend_cnt == 0) ? 1 : 0;
>> }
> Instead of adding the conditional, I'd split this into two functions,
> one for HMP and one for QMP, just like we split the other two callbacks.
good idea

>> This will solve my case completely and does not break any
>> backward compatibility.
> No change for HMP.  Okay.
>
> For QMP, monitor_qmp_read() feeds whatever it gets to the JSON lexer.
> It currently gets one character at a time, because that's how much
> monitor_can_read() returns.  With your change, it gets up to 4KiB.
>
> The JSON lexer feeds tokens to the JSON streamer one at a time until it
> has consumed everything it was fed.
>
> The JSON streamer accumulates tokens, parsing them just enough to know
> when it has a complete expression.  It pushes the expression to the QMP
> expression handler immediately.
>
> The QMP expression handler calls the JSON parser to parse the tokens
> into a QObject, then dispatches to QMP command handlers accordingly.
>
> Everything's synchronous.  When a QMP command handler runs, the calling
> JSON streamer invocation is handling the command's final closing brace,
> and so is the calling JSON lexer.  After the QMP command handler
> returns, the JSON streamer returns.  The JSON lexer then looks at the
> next character if there are more, else it returns.
>
> The only difference to before that I can see is that we can read ahead.
> That's a feature.
>
> Looks safe to me.  Opinions?
Looks fair to me.

Den