From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F672C433EF for ; Mon, 30 May 2022 07:41:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id C76168D0002; Mon, 30 May 2022 03:41:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id C25148D0001; Mon, 30 May 2022 03:41:29 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id AECBA8D0002; Mon, 30 May 2022 03:41:29 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0015.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.15]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0FD88D0001 for ; Mon, 30 May 2022 03:41:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin18.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay13.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EDFB611E3 for ; Mon, 30 May 2022 07:41:28 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 79521614256.18.EB2ADA0 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by imf20.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E069D1C0052 for ; Mon, 30 May 2022 07:41:10 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1653896486; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=Ioljxq6PuUu4lxQDlH2MK2dNxIoWh+YwDSpERyNHcYc=; b=A9y7TSWhgjLxzKg1a5Rbu//i7yaqaIEXXcXsPv+mB/bFcIQgLHdCQCk9Df73VQTL7jeBhU oJKXE8yG6FbRxg5XsN2glOMIsyAhmexGTQD6oP5snN6Yfddfe+sYxyJqog51esH/i0/Rti j5XCsSKxrcv4hXrU1TXfhB4CkDjiLfI= Received: from mail-wm1-f71.google.com (mail-wm1-f71.google.com [209.85.128.71]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-83-hLtI54JbPGWqqcaOT_H-Yw-1; Mon, 30 May 2022 03:41:25 -0400 X-MC-Unique: hLtI54JbPGWqqcaOT_H-Yw-1 Received: by mail-wm1-f71.google.com with SMTP id l31-20020a05600c1d1f00b003974df9b91cso9246640wms.8 for ; Mon, 30 May 2022 00:41:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent :content-language:to:cc:references:from:organization:subject :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Ioljxq6PuUu4lxQDlH2MK2dNxIoWh+YwDSpERyNHcYc=; b=cxoaWupG8s/mnBmAQx0anvmtWthwkptr3s7YYfAud9iEMOQ1XHTtMbMC4UjwhSpoih 2w84nhAEQUQbJ+rojJtiXv+ZvfUFuE6GQlvvZl2mX1Dxqdjghi/UWJKYHimFICmSM7de fNv8gStyeGZtaZ4s43N4g8VjZRc3PqtqTlmdhaun30YsIShvkYxd0mTE5KfpQLsPgcTz rl9OEI0F0ykb4TOmPiEpQA2yGRUnUmx2lOmMl66rfBeN+m0i3Zn9V0uqJ79sj5Zr5Lxk 9WBr3V8+N8uvBmojYgmMPbvI0WAh7778k0nLoAoSDBfPvQ7hHugdZEv+Owty4dKTMJiQ OFEw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532DKInBV9IQ5ygef3XM79RmiKeeVskTLAuNI19x56jhA4xkDC3N Z0Iju2BTgrnSArTurw6+kkFLXUImn2F+47SqxKY9S3kkgM76Jn4RJjswIPAI2FXhI/yIB2VlFH9 K8AEZ/8kBShs= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:144f:b0:20f:d6e8:a54 with SMTP id v15-20020a056000144f00b0020fd6e80a54mr30927457wrx.482.1653896483878; Mon, 30 May 2022 00:41:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJygmIHMNmIMibGNEd206s8mAH/2ItntHqoVW3Fp9CPDeipNv0CP+C+hoSkZ/LeN5Ih++u+6aA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:144f:b0:20f:d6e8:a54 with SMTP id v15-20020a056000144f00b0020fd6e80a54mr30927434wrx.482.1653896483573; Mon, 30 May 2022 00:41:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPV6:2003:cb:c704:7c00:aaa9:2ce5:5aa0:f736? (p200300cbc7047c00aaa92ce55aa0f736.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [2003:cb:c704:7c00:aaa9:2ce5:5aa0:f736]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h9-20020a7bc929000000b003974a3af623sm9688836wml.17.2022.05.30.00.41.22 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 30 May 2022 00:41:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <0d266c61-605d-ce0c-4274-b0c7e10f845a@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 30 May 2022 09:41:22 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.0 To: zhenwei pi , Peter Xu , Jue Wang Cc: Andrew Morton , jasowang@redhat.com, LKML , Linux MM , mst@redhat.com, =?UTF-8?B?SE9SSUdVQ0hJIE5BT1lBKOWggOWPoyDnm7TkuZ8p?= , Paolo Bonzini , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org References: <24a95dea-9ea6-a904-7c0b-197961afa1d1@bytedance.com> From: David Hildenbrand Organization: Red Hat Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] recover hardware corrupted page by virtio balloon In-Reply-To: <24a95dea-9ea6-a904-7c0b-197961afa1d1@bytedance.com> X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Rspamd-Server: rspam08 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: E069D1C0052 X-Rspam-User: X-Stat-Signature: jrgs8abjd3sunpfzu8eenxy1t87w91jz Authentication-Results: imf20.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=redhat.com header.s=mimecast20190719 header.b=A9y7TSWh; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=redhat.com; spf=none (imf20.hostedemail.com: domain of david@redhat.com has no SPF policy when checking 170.10.129.124) smtp.mailfrom=david@redhat.com X-HE-Tag: 1653896470-703088 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On 27.05.22 08:32, zhenwei pi wrote: > On 5/27/22 02:37, Peter Xu wrote: >> On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 01:16:34PM -0700, Jue Wang wrote: >>> The hypervisor _must_ emulate poisons identified in guest physical >>> address space (could be transported from the source VM), this is to >>> prevent silent data corruption in the guest. With a paravirtual >>> approach like this patch series, the hypervisor can clear some of the >>> poisoned HVAs knowing for certain that the guest OS has isolated the >>> poisoned page. I wonder how much value it provides to the guest if the >>> guest and workload are _not_ in a pressing need for the extra KB/MB >>> worth of memory. >> >> I'm curious the same on how unpoisoning could help here. The reasoning >> behind would be great material to be mentioned in the next cover letter. >> >> Shouldn't we consider migrating serious workloads off the host already >> where there's a sign of more severe hardware issues, instead? >> >> Thanks, >> > > I'm maintaining 1000,000+ virtual machines, from my experience: > UE is quite unusual and occurs randomly, and I did not hit UE storm case > in the past years. The memory also has no obvious performance drop after > hitting UE. > > I hit several CE storm case, the performance memory drops a lot. But I > can't find obvious relationship between UE and CE. > > So from the point of my view, to fix the corrupted page for VM seems > good enough. And yes, unpoisoning several pages does not help > significantly, but it is still a chance to make the virtualization better. > I'm curious why we should care about resurrecting a handful of poisoned pages in a VM. The cover letter doesn't touch on that. IOW, I'm missing the motivation why we should add additional code+complexity to unpoison pages at all. If we're talking about individual 4k pages, it's certainly sub-optimal, but does it matter in practice? I could understand if we're losing megabytes of memory. But then, I assume the workload might be seriously harmed either way already? I assume when talking about "the performance memory drops a lot", you imply that this patch set can mitigate that performance drop? But why do you see a performance drop? Because we might lose some possible THP candidates (in the host or the guest) and you want to plug does holes? I assume you'll see a performance drop simply because poisoning memory is expensive, including migrating pages around on CE. If you have some numbers to share, especially before/after this change, that would be great. -- Thanks, David / dhildenb