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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.4 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_MED,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,HTML_MESSAGE, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77335C35247 for ; Wed, 5 Feb 2020 19:01:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F015214AF for ; Wed, 5 Feb 2020 19:01:32 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="oKHzFqWp" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 1F015214AF Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 9B5806B0080; Wed, 5 Feb 2020 14:01:32 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 93F776B0081; Wed, 5 Feb 2020 14:01:32 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 807016B0087; Wed, 5 Feb 2020 14:01:32 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0240.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.240]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F6116B0080 for ; Wed, 5 Feb 2020 14:01:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin01.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F58F33C4 for ; Wed, 5 Feb 2020 19:01:32 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76456992024.01.prose65_2a6d4b1605011 X-HE-Tag: prose65_2a6d4b1605011 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 16628 Received: from mail-vs1-f49.google.com (mail-vs1-f49.google.com [209.85.217.49]) by imf03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 5 Feb 2020 19:01:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vs1-f49.google.com with SMTP id g23so2067750vsr.7 for ; Wed, 05 Feb 2020 11:01:31 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=3PryEnQ0gynXuXwD3zaE8+XhD2oju6ijtM5P/r/P3rY=; b=oKHzFqWpoiiNV5NNVFjezNqMVujshyK160xPu1ZaOYlCPpsNnB+YHmf1/zA1k9bgCk xDFfwCeo1AbFLMIqVaE83v0mP5nOn/H7qSX3NGCxULC1nd2qGd5R/R5qs3QNlNSssyX/ HarXUN4Q+Ei0LEkX4nP0L6MOHFQhLHJedKBFXCoFBPmf7oeDYa2+00ZPPpsnaD9kTRqH BVfGpcCT8zFKG4jDZOFbjYaRllin/JBiiHUKQKmWLDbfyKn2KrwM2q0Q5Ec1zMNs59wt gN2WRCr6yUse1biNRvR7OrohHgxphbSYcyaU4k5wuT986tWhC2u8N4arUk+DG5r1LNE4 9n0g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=3PryEnQ0gynXuXwD3zaE8+XhD2oju6ijtM5P/r/P3rY=; b=JByFbKWBi9yTMeINDem2lC07kAXnaqAMm9zNoZfwcY75sexup0NenqCwZlSma3ipf9 JVjfPArM1yliTzrI4l9JpL3Hc9RNFOhN2XScgDdszW6r21SnWL/+Z/Kpdvgfn0RrqsUS mhEvxd2COaCARaVaFcKF5C2S7iW1YrxrBu3e1dBYio5DM+JvpQmQu3CKBCwh3lT0JJIj iY7ZhiDf81OUShMytD7u5geN48dQYbu2rT0Rv53KBOwQMkb3dUsPLr2/bLhya3GkZfkV l6CXH6mGxsqDNSHa3mo9faa9GYJ59CkCWCPQajppC+17K+tg2vZF54U2OKKb9B2ivALx Fo7Q== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV7m/Y+0vpm4u/J8YLMEAPQndHaRIc3v8lgdVBsX6RYYCiGyLhB ncRUeWJiOGV13BxTYgMHarPgjVOmKS6PBekQreb0fw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwCg0B0SQRssUS5QQDx7wAjLGSrXGrotN6ApjH9bRup1ytybIYz3c+RGMyXPWnfDSfCMiiN4rUxC05Ewd4tEvw= X-Received: by 2002:a67:e3b3:: with SMTP id j19mr22887236vsm.41.1580929288171; Wed, 05 Feb 2020 11:01:28 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200203080520-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <5ac131de8e3b7fc1fafd05a61feb5f6889aeb917.camel@linux.intel.com> <20200203120225-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <74cc25a6-cefb-c580-8e59-5b76fb680bf4@redhat.com> <20200205015057-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: <20200205015057-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> From: Tyler Sanderson Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2020 11:01:15 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Balloon pressuring page cache To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Cc: David Hildenbrand , Alexander Duyck , "Wang, Wei W" , "virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org" , David Rientjes , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , Michal Hocko , namit@vmware.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a36cc8059dd8c819" 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: --000000000000a36cc8059dd8c819 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 10:57 PM Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Tue, Feb 04, 2020 at 03:58:51PM -0800, Tyler Sanderson wrote: > > > > > > > > 1. It is last-resort, which means the system has already > gone through > > > > heroics to prevent OOM. Those heroic reclaim efforts > are expensive > > > > and impact application performance. > > > > > > That's *exactly* what "deflate on OOM" suggests. > > > > > > > > > It seems there are some use cases where "deflate on OOM" is > desired and > > > others where "deflate on pressure" is desired. > > > This suggests adding a new feature bit "DEFLATE_ON_PRESSURE" that > > > registers the shrinker, and reverting DEFLATE_ON_OOM to use the OOM > > > notifier callback. > > > > > > This lets users configure the balloon for their use case. > > > > You want the old behavior back, so why should we introduce a new > one? Or > > am I missing something? (you did want us to revert to old handling, > no?) > > > > Reverting actually doesn't help me because this has been the behavior > since > > Linux 4.19 which is already widely in use. So my device implementation > needs to > > handle the shrinker behavior anyways. I started this conversation to ask > what > > the intended device implementation was. > > > > I think there are reasonable device implementations that would prefer the > > shrinker behavior (it turns out that mine doesn't). > > For example, an implementation that slowly inflates the balloon for the > purpose > > of memory overcommit. It might leave the balloon inflated and expect any > memory > > pressure (including page cache usage) to deflate the balloon as a way to > > dynamically right-size the balloon. > > So just to make sure we understand, what exactly does your > implementation do? > My implementation is for the purposes of opportunistic memory overcommit. We always want to give balloon memory back to the guest rather than causing an OOM, so we use DEFLATE_ON_OOM. We leave the balloon at size 0 while monitoring memory statistics reported on the stats queue. When we see there is an opportunity for significant savings then we inflate the balloon to a desired size (possibly including pressuring the page cache), and then immediately deflate back to size 0. The host pages backing the guest pages are unbacked during the inflation process, so the memory footprint of the guest is smaller after this inflate/deflate cycle. > > > Two reasons I didn't go with the above implementation: > > 1. I need to support guests before Linux 4.19 which don't have the > shrinker > > behavior. > > 2. Memory in the balloon does not appear as "available" in /proc/meminfo > even > > though it is freeable. This is confusing to users, but isn't a deal > breaker. > > > > If we added a DEFLATE_ON_PRESSURE feature bit that indicated shrinker API > > support then that would resolve reason #1 (ideally we would backport the > bit to > > 4.19). > > We could declare lack of pagecache pressure with DEFLATE_ON_OOM a > regression and backport the revert but not I think the new > DEFLATE_ON_PRESSURE. > To be clear, the page cache can still be pressured. When the balloon driver allocates memory and causes reclaim, some of that memory comes from the balloon (bad) but some of that comes from the page cache (good). > > > > In any case, the shrinker behavior when pressuring page cache is more of > an > > inefficiency than a bug. It's not clear to me that it necessitates > reverting. > > If there were/are reasons to be on the shrinker interface then I think > those > > carry similar weight as the problem itself. > > > > > > > > I consider virtio-balloon to this very day a big hack. And I don't > see > > it getting better with new config knobs. Having that said, the > > technologies that are candidates to replace it (free page reporting, > > taming the guest page cache, etc.) are still not ready - so we'll > have > > to stick with it for now :( . > > > > > > > > I'm actually not sure how you would safely do memory overcommit > without > > > DEFLATE_ON_OOM. So I think it unlocks a huge use case. > > > > Using better suited technologies that are not ready yet (well, some > form > > of free page reporting is available under IBM z already but in a > > proprietary form) ;) Anyhow, I remember that DEFLATE_ON_OOM only > makes > > it less likely to crash your guest, but not that you are safe to > squeeze > > the last bit out of your guest VM. > > > > Can you elaborate on the danger of DEFLATE_ON_OOM? I haven't seen any > problems > > in testing but I'd really like to know about the dangers. > > Is there a difference in safety between the OOM notifier callback and the > > shrinker API? > > It's not about dangers as such. It's just that when linux hits OOM > all kind of error paths are being hit, latent bugs start triggering, > latency goes up drastically. Doesn't this suggest that the shrinker is preferable to the OOM notifier in the case that we're actually OOMing (with DEFLATE_ON_OOM)? > > > > > > > -- > > Thanks, > > > > David / dhildenb > > > > > > --000000000000a36cc8059dd8c819 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


=
On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 10:57 PM Micha= el S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> = wrote:
On Tue, F= eb 04, 2020 at 03:58:51PM -0800, Tyler Sanderson wrote:
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>=C2=A0 1. It is last-re= sort, which means the system has already gone=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0through >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0her= oics to prevent OOM. Those heroic reclaim efforts are=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0ex= pensive
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0and= impact application performance.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0That's *exactly* what &= quot;deflate on OOM" suggests.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> It seems there are some use cases where "= deflate on OOM" is desired and
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> others where "deflate on pressure" i= s desired.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> This suggests adding a new feature bit "D= EFLATE_ON_PRESSURE" that
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> registers the shrinker, and reverting DEFLATE_= ON_OOM to use the OOM
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> notifier callback.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> This lets users configure the balloon for thei= r use case.
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0You want the old behavior back, so why should we in= troduce a new one? Or
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0am I missing something? (you did want us to revert = to old handling, no?)
>
> Reverting actually doesn't help me because this has been the behav= ior since
> Linux 4.19 which is already widely in use. So my device implementation= needs to
> handle the shrinker behavior anyways. I started this conversation to a= sk what
> the intended device implementation was.
>
> I think there are reasonable device implementations that would prefer = the
> shrinker=C2=A0behavior (it turns out that mine doesn't).
> For example, an implementation that slowly inflates the balloon for th= e purpose
> of memory overcommit. It might leave the balloon inflated and expect a= ny memory
> pressure (including page cache usage) to deflate the balloon as a way = to
> dynamically right-size the balloon.

So just to make sure we understand, what exactly does your
implementation do?
My implementation is for the purpos= es of opportunistic memory overcommit. We always want to give balloon memor= y back to the guest rather than causing an OOM, so we use DEFLATE_ON_OOM.
We leave the balloon at size 0 while monitoring memory statistics = reported on the stats queue. When we see there is an opportunity for signif= icant savings then we inflate the balloon to a desired size (possibly inclu= ding pressuring the page cache), and then immediately deflate back to size = 0.
The host pages backing the guest pages are unbacked during the= inflation process, so the memory footprint of the guest is smaller after t= his inflate/deflate cycle.



> Two reasons I didn't go with the above implementation:
> 1. I need to support guests before Linux 4.19 which don't have the= shrinker
> behavior.
> 2. Memory in the balloon does not appear as "available" in /= proc/meminfo even
> though it is freeable. This is confusing to users, but isn't a dea= l breaker.
>
> If we added a DEFLATE_ON_PRESSURE feature bit that indicated shrinker = API
> support then that would resolve reason=C2=A0#1 (ideally we would backp= ort the bit to
> 4.19).

We could declare lack of pagecache pressure with DEFLATE_ON_OOM a
regression and backport the revert but not I think the new
DEFLATE_ON_PRESSURE.
To be clear, the page cache can s= till be pressured. When the balloon driver allocates memory and causes recl= aim, some of that memory comes from the balloon (bad) but some of that come= s from the page cache (good).
=C2=A0


> In any case, the shrinker=C2=A0behavior when pressuring page cache is = more of an
> inefficiency than a bug. It's not clear to me that it necessitates= reverting.
> If there were/are reasons to be on the shrinker=C2=A0interface then I = think those
> carry similar weight as the problem itself.
> =C2=A0
>
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0I consider virtio-balloon to this very day a big ha= ck. And I don't see
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0it getting better with new config knobs. Having tha= t said, the
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0technologies that are candidates to replace it (fre= e page reporting,
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0taming the guest page cache, etc.) are still not re= ady - so we'll have
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0to stick with it for now :( .
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> I'm actually not sure how you would safely= do memory overcommit without
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> DEFLATE_ON_OOM. So I think it unlocks a huge u= se case.
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Using better suited technologies that are not ready= yet (well, some form
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0of free page reporting is available under IBM z alr= eady but in a
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0proprietary form) ;) Anyhow, I remember that DEFLAT= E_ON_OOM only makes
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0it less likely to crash your guest, but not that yo= u are safe to squeeze
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0the last bit out of your guest VM.
>
> Can you elaborate on the danger of DEFLATE_ON_OOM? I haven't seen = any problems
> in testing but I'd really like to know about the dangers.
> Is there a difference in safety between the OOM notifier callback and = the
> shrinker API?

It's not about dangers as such. It's just that when linux hits OOM<= br> all kind of error paths are being hit, latent bugs start triggering,
latency goes up drastically.
Doesn't this suggest that= the shrinker is preferable to the OOM notifier in the case that we're = actually OOMing (with DEFLATE_ON_OOM)?



>
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0--
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Thanks,
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0David / dhildenb
>
>

--000000000000a36cc8059dd8c819--