[ovirt-devel] [VDSM][sampling] thread pool status and handling of stuck calls

[Saggi Mizrahi]

The more I think about it the more it looks like it's
purely a libvirt issue. As long as we can make calls
that get stuck on D state we can't scale under stress.

In any case, seems like having an interface like.

libvirtConnectionPool.request(args, callback)

Would be a better solution than a thread pool.

It would queue up the request and call the callback
once it's done.

pseudo example:

def collectStats():
     def callback(resp):
          doStuff(resp)
          threading.Timer(4, collectStats)

     lcp.listAllDevices(callback)

We could have the timer queue in a threadpool since it normally
runs in the main thread but that is orthogonal to the libvirt
connection issue.

As for the thread pool itself. As long as it's more than one class
it's too complicated.

Things like:
* Task Cancelling
* Re-queuing (periodic operations)

Shouldn't be part of the thread pool.

Task should just be functions. If we need something
with a state we could use the __call__() method to make
an object look like a function. I also don't mind doing
if hasattr(task, "run") or callable(task) to handle it
using an "interface"

Re-queuing could be done with the build it threading.Timer
as in

threading.Timer(4.5, threadpool.queue, args=(self,))

That way each operation is responsible for handing
the details of rescheduling.
Should we always wait X, should we wait X - timeItTookToCalculate.

You could also do:
threading.Timer(2, threadpool.queue, args=(self,))
threading.Timer(4, self.handleBeingLate)

Which would handle not getting queued for a certain amount of time.

Task cancelling can't be done in a generic manner.
The most I think we could do is have threadpool.stop()
check hassattr("stop", task) and call it.


----- Original Message -----
> From: "Francesco Romani" <fromani at redhat.com>
> To: devel at ovirt.org
> Sent: Friday, July 4, 2014 5:48:59 PM
> Subject: [ovirt-devel] [VDSM][sampling] thread pool status and handling of	stuck calls
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Nir has begun reviewing my draft patches about the thread pool and sampling
> refactoring (thanks!),
> and already suggested quite some improvements which I'd like to summarize
> 
> Quick links to the ongoing discussion:
> http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/29191/8/lib/threadpool/worker.py,cm
> http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/29190/4/lib/threadpool/README.rst,cm
> 
> Quick summary of the discussion on gerrit so far:
> 1. extract the scheduling logic from the thread pool. Either add a separate
> scheduler class
>    or let the sampling task reschedule themselves after a succesfull
>    completion.
>    In any way the concept of  'periodic task', and the added complexity,
>    isn't needed.
> 
> 2. drop all the *queue classes I've added, thus making the package simpler.
>    They are no longer needed since we remove the concept of periodic task.
> 
> 3. have per-task timeout, move the stuck task detection elsewhere, like in
> the worker thread, ot
>    maybe better in the aforementioned scheduler.
>    If the scheduler finds that any task started in the former pass (or even
>    before!)
>    has not yet completed, there is no point in keeping this task alive and it
>    should be cancelled.
> 
> 4. the sampling task (or maybe the scheduler) can be smarter and halting the
> sample in presence of
>    not responding calls for a given VM, granted the VM reports its
>    'health'/responsiveness.
> 
> (Hopefully I haven't forgot anything big)
> 
> In the draft currently published, I reluctantly added the *queue classes and
> I agree the periodic
> task implementation is messy, so I'll be very happy to drop them.
> 
> However, a core question still holds: what to do in presence of the stuck
> task?
> 
> I think it is worth to discuss this topic on a medium friendlier than gerrit,
> as it is the single
> most important decision to make in the sampling refactoring.
> 
> It all boils down to:
> Should we just keep somewhere stuck threads and wait? Should we cancel stuck
> tasks?
> 
> A. Let's cancel the stuck tasks.
> If we move toward a libvirt connection pool, and we give each worker thread
> in the sampling pool
> a separate libvirt connection, hopefully read-only, then we should be able to
> cancel stuck task by
> killing the worker's libvirt connection. We'll still need a (probably much
> simpler) watchman/supervisor,
> but no big deal here.
> Libvirt allows to close a connection from a different thread.
> I haven't actually tried to unstuck a blocked thread this way, but I have no
> reason to believe it
> will not work.
> 
> B. Let's keep around blocked threads
> The code as it is just leaves a blocked libvirt call and the worker thread
> that carried it frozen.
> The stuck worker thread can be replaced up to a cap of frozen threads.
> In this worst case scenario, we end up with one (blocked!) thread per VM, as
> it is today, and with
> no sampling data.
> 
> I believe that #A has some drawbacks which we risk to overlook, and on the
> same time #B has some merits.
> 
> Let me explain:
> The hardest case is a call blocked in the kernel in D state. Libvirt has no
> more room than VDSM
> to unblock it; and libvirt itself *has* a pool of resources (threads in this
> case) which can be depleted
> by stuck calls. Actually, retrying to do a failed task may deplete their pool
> even faster[1].
> 
> I'm not happy to just push this problem down the stack, as it looks to me
> that we gain
> very little by doing so. VDSM itself surely stays cleaner, but the
> VDS/hypervisor hosts on the whole
> improves just a bit: libvirt scales better, and that gives us some more room.
> 
> On the other hand, by avoiding to reissue dangerous calls, I believe we make
> better use of
> the host resources in general. Actually, the point of keeping blocked thread
> around is a side effect
> of not reattempting blocked calls. Moreover, to keep the blocked thread
> around has a significant
> benefit: we can discover at the earliest moment when it is safe again to do
> the blocked call,
> because the blocked call itself returns and we can track this event! (and of
> course drop the
> now stale result). Otherwise, if we drop the connection, we'll lose this
> event and we have no
> more option that trying again and hoping for the best[2]
> 
> I know the #B approach is not the cleanest, but I think it has slightly more
> appeal, especially
> on the libvirt depletion front.
> 
> Thoughts and comments very welcome!
> 
> +++
> 
> [1] They have extensions to management API to dinamically adjust their thread
> pool and/or to cancel
> tasks, but it is in the RHEL7.2 timeframe.
> [2] A crazy idea would be to do something like
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_backoff
> which I'm not sure would be beneficial
> 
> Bests and thanks,
> 
> --
> Francesco Romani
> RedHat Engineering Virtualization R & D
> Phone: 8261328
> IRC: fromani
> _______________________________________________
> Devel mailing list
> Devel at ovirt.org
> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>