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=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham 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 71E50C43381 for ; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 22:57:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F1162173C for ; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 22:57:04 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="VmdyRRhm" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 0F1162173C Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 9C3188E0004; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 18:57:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 999978E0002; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 18:57:04 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 8AF6B8E0004; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 18:57:04 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from mail-it1-f197.google.com (mail-it1-f197.google.com [209.85.166.197]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64E458E0002 for ; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 18:57:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-it1-f197.google.com with SMTP id v12so3569453itv.9 for ; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 15:57:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:dkim-signature:mime-version:references :in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=jIFuwTaqlsPxroQheI+plV9ASZgtqzOS4PSZ00O/GCE=; b=mgQXI6bQhEOkAE6ULvA+DqTSiADuu2aaLEtSLBwPmcsZH+x3DzjvwNOKSF49u0n86u dtoYcHDb2VJZBjlb6Z7uDereMoaJZWqhtrCCZOiwPsgjsxA+eKO/MTxxJLZvijGmSVtN 4CxKU5vCO/Bg5GIcE+Slec70Y87zNQtpBrdmyUT+8WurQSN+XFlx5GbLFEkHFjllee5Z kifZrINJ4GOO+XK7nt11UlKZ3sSiddin0QdLPa4HjbHHgmI52mx5pd478CMkGSmTxlEZ HhTmZ/ScaKvuIiNVj16/xqFEjnHP2ghcOFKAvIvl2MW4I7teP90bE1QcGiacUElp3ILm 8Vog== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWV6YJiYWQqIvk24MaDKWfoIXDmeGeobfGICMdgWwvAMhvRhYuM jAU87HMIQU07/F6q+eJ6zac+z8jy5NRgD4xaHGC0R55Nf7lvVnI98j/FWpASetOa2dfJcbHEzUx BdrSMuUWYRxZetDWKIXrzzwxbLSwtM+6U8XLUpKMmKbya1Y13LBxj8qeVlY24x4BViXFIiaDgZ3 Qc46O0wIpx48GQ/q+FAN7Kw8gEXn+iu28xLl5V42yU3sroTwwRJsiDAHV+vnBr2M/3jspHKfZp5 wqoLbCg02Q2aphCCzvxEVybqDxWBKpQCLKPXz8dKUWnYuvvMgY6yo5B1HlKSW6AhrsLa5mJcli1 Z9n0xKrgkN+2YTCutsWgq9/5GF8GTtNOjW+SE5zwwaxN5I0fNdweOpFAM9r5gVDwMh99XERryY1 D X-Received: by 2002:a02:5c5d:: with SMTP id q90mr22542096jab.43.1552431424107; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 15:57:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a02:5c5d:: with SMTP id q90mr22542061jab.43.1552431423053; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 15:57:03 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1552431423; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=BLHj3c1MxYIRa47X3KtviJVg3FLmjAy06Yp4kj78lJmZZJfEXCo3NtBIGlVkv1XtrJ /QuimbdbyoIl/QrWAoQnbUYS9bSBl/crehHfS2opMaV2cqvo+KEV5TCPKGStbNIPmCeT 241nrwwKZRI/U8n+Zbov1MuBnFD1psdz2h1MbBTnoPLPa5OrYG6ZDUI2lxYrbA10fOjA h9tu9Qy1D0GWrRgtx5yJYeHa8ar2L4UYlg5+7OGjaIl0fYrVh+nRovSLSJDW/orMC9B2 e9IpJ0HdeXPy954JCLZkpw/CE0jZbp0HenPx2DjsmFqiW+Nu6A7SnZNfabrHTun9CqQ0 j3uQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:dkim-signature; bh=jIFuwTaqlsPxroQheI+plV9ASZgtqzOS4PSZ00O/GCE=; b=Xev62cu0Hrl1OGWr1ZSCeKrNxZoWqpM9fO9QmvFgekLWlHmR194BPIELM4iZXLKHC6 aN1keoGkzHDVJnYJfBNhBQKMUn+PLT2cceXXnRXYGRxeJdvBlVqKNPsszMaJTDWh/RDm CwX1uWiGU4rrUS8RnTBMk80whZQiqHZKTtfa6BnTq4xvUrfuLrs4nL7SE64QMySN0JJE UxxQeaWEifKRLyIxO979LdacRaSWaAFzSrdCONUuPWh2LObtHiFC5dw1qG3ZzHkfJqs6 jSpFgCDClmcsrHg/fn9QGDcNwO8/e1ulC9tpE2SGWhtKLI0eUEl4X6mXOBiFsfrqLl79 Vh+A== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com header.s=20161025 header.b=VmdyRRhm; spf=pass (google.com: domain of alexander.duyck@gmail.com designates 209.85.220.65 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=alexander.duyck@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com Received: from mail-sor-f65.google.com (mail-sor-f65.google.com. [209.85.220.65]) by mx.google.com with SMTPS id m47sor165876iti.2.2019.03.12.15.57.02 for (Google Transport Security); Tue, 12 Mar 2019 15:57:03 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of alexander.duyck@gmail.com designates 209.85.220.65 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.220.65; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com header.s=20161025 header.b=VmdyRRhm; spf=pass (google.com: domain of alexander.duyck@gmail.com designates 209.85.220.65 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=alexander.duyck@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=jIFuwTaqlsPxroQheI+plV9ASZgtqzOS4PSZ00O/GCE=; b=VmdyRRhmKuHbcpkG8m+AVJpZeTLkgs88qJxqBQ80xUiEM1GRYFwMXtA2dx54CJ97AU CdUop5KWoTbZS/9dVAVE4JNnbeZwQDpZBFiUcv22IilkF0CId7GouHM2vn3i7QmWZynl g4t/HPIQjRG6htkap+SxSH9pZnUXevZAq94gvm1fB6tLu1MAk3HZ4gAF1Ffp+DFdNB9M UGxw0wcWjmH3wYPCBZeDHuUPaYt1y/7FK3+ZJmdMWIb2GXGBwTEr5L/EfiElTr8EuJQX 07AO+k4CH2H5DLCRchY4oNhbCvaXcILrLeKI5MZEuHtRNJmB+IZwEdZ8nVWar2O3+b68 epQw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwL7Bqrcj7SXP29rOVcCDsjzWYenQ27zAqjv+O5kl+XPR3EpMGhyotzkBj4jLCYXb7avecbKU+9xy3Nz0cqQwQ= X-Received: by 2002:a24:b643:: with SMTP id d3mr136826itj.146.1552431422559; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 15:57:02 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190306155048.12868-1-nitesh@redhat.com> <20190306155048.12868-3-nitesh@redhat.com> <2d9ae889-a9b9-7969-4455-ff36944f388b@redhat.com> <22e4b1cd-38a5-6642-8cbe-d68e4fcbb0b7@redhat.com> <78b604be-2129-a716-a7a6-f5b382c9fb9c@redhat.com> <20190307212845-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <17d2afa6-556e-ec73-40dc-beac536b3f20@redhat.com> <8f692047-4750-6827-1ee0-d3d354788f09@redhat.com> <41ae8afe-72c9-58e6-0cbb-9375c91ce37a@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: From: Alexander Duyck Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2019 15:56:51 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC][Patch v9 2/6] KVM: Enables the kernel to isolate guest free pages To: David Hildenbrand Cc: Nitesh Narayan Lal , "Michael S. Tsirkin" , kvm list , LKML , linux-mm , Paolo Bonzini , lcapitulino@redhat.com, pagupta@redhat.com, wei.w.wang@intel.com, Yang Zhang , Rik van Riel , dodgen@google.com, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , dhildenb@redhat.com, Andrea Arcangeli Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" 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 Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 2:53 PM David Hildenbrand wrote: > > On 12.03.19 22:13, Alexander Duyck wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 12:46 PM Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote: > >> > >> On 3/8/19 4:39 PM, Alexander Duyck wrote: > >>> On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 11:39 AM Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote: > >>>> On 3/8/19 2:25 PM, Alexander Duyck wrote: > >>>>> On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 11:10 AM Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote: > >>>>>> On 3/8/19 1:06 PM, Alexander Duyck wrote: > >>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 6:32 PM Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 02:35:53PM -0800, Alexander Duyck wrote: > >>>>>>>>> The only other thing I still want to try and see if I can do is to add > >>>>>>>>> a jiffies value to the page private data in the case of the buddy > >>>>>>>>> pages. > >>>>>>>> Actually there's one extra thing I think we should do, and that is make > >>>>>>>> sure we do not leave less than X% off the free memory at a time. > >>>>>>>> This way chances of triggering an OOM are lower. > >>>>>>> If nothing else we could probably look at doing a watermark of some > >>>>>>> sort so we have to have X amount of memory free but not hinted before > >>>>>>> we will start providing the hints. It would just be a matter of > >>>>>>> tracking how much memory we have hinted on versus the amount of memory > >>>>>>> that has been pulled from that pool. > >>>>>> This is to avoid false OOM in the guest? > >>>>> Partially, though it would still be possible. Basically it would just > >>>>> be a way of determining when we have hinted "enough". Basically it > >>>>> doesn't do us much good to be hinting on free memory if the guest is > >>>>> already constrained and just going to reallocate the memory shortly > >>>>> after we hinted on it. The idea is with a watermark we can avoid > >>>>> hinting until we start having pages that are actually going to stay > >>>>> free for a while. > >>>>> > >>>>>>> It is another reason why we > >>>>>>> probably want a bit in the buddy pages somewhere to indicate if a page > >>>>>>> has been hinted or not as we can then use that to determine if we have > >>>>>>> to account for it in the statistics. > >>>>>> The one benefit which I can see of having an explicit bit is that it > >>>>>> will help us to have a single hook away from the hot path within buddy > >>>>>> merging code (just like your arch_merge_page) and still avoid duplicate > >>>>>> hints while releasing pages. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I still have to check PG_idle and PG_young which you mentioned but I > >>>>>> don't think we can reuse any existing bits. > >>>>> Those are bits that are already there for 64b. I think those exist in > >>>>> the page extension for 32b systems. If I am not mistaken they are only > >>>>> used in VMA mapped memory. What I was getting at is that those are the > >>>>> bits we could think about reusing. > >>>>> > >>>>>> If we really want to have something like a watermark, then can't we use > >>>>>> zone->free_pages before isolating to see how many free pages are there > >>>>>> and put a threshold on it? (__isolate_free_page() does a similar thing > >>>>>> but it does that on per request basis). > >>>>> Right. That is only part of it though since that tells you how many > >>>>> free pages are there. But how many of those free pages are hinted? > >>>>> That is the part we would need to track separately and then then > >>>>> compare to free_pages to determine if we need to start hinting on more > >>>>> memory or not. > >>>> Only pages which are isolated will be hinted, and once a page is > >>>> isolated it will not be counted in the zone free pages. > >>>> Feel free to correct me if I am wrong. > >>> You are correct up to here. When we isolate the page it isn't counted > >>> against the free pages. However after we complete the hint we end up > >>> taking it out of isolation and returning it to the "free" state, so it > >>> will be counted against the free pages. > >>> > >>>> If I am understanding it correctly you only want to hint the idle pages, > >>>> is that right? > >>> Getting back to the ideas from our earlier discussion, we had 3 stages > >>> for things. Free but not hinted, isolated due to hinting, and free and > >>> hinted. So what we would need to do is identify the size of the first > >>> pool that is free and not hinted by knowing the total number of free > >>> pages, and then subtract the size of the pages that are hinted and > >>> still free. > >> To summarize, for now, I think it makes sense to stick with the current > >> approach as this way we can avoid any locking in the allocation path and > >> reduce the number of hypercalls for a bunch of MAX_ORDER - 1 page. > > > > I'm not sure what you are talking about by "avoid any locking in the > > allocation path". Are you talking about the spin on idle bit, if so > > then yes. However I have been testing your patches and I was correct > > in the assumption that you forgot to handle the zone lock when you > > were freeing __free_one_page. I just did a quick copy/paste from your > > zone lock handling from the guest_free_page_hinting function into the > > release_buddy_pages function and then I was able to enable multiple > > CPUs without any issues. > > > >> For the next step other than the comments received in the code and what > >> I mentioned in the cover email, I would like to do the following: > >> 1. Explore the watermark idea suggested by Alex and bring down memhog > >> execution time if possible. > > > > So there are a few things that are hurting us on the memhog test: > > 1. The current QEMU patch is only madvising 4K pages at a time, this > > is disabling THP and hurts the test. > > > > 2. The fact that we madvise the pages away makes it so that we have to > > fault the page back in in order to use it for the memhog test. In > > order to avoid that penalty we may want to see if we can introduce > > some sort of "timeout" on the pages so that we are only hinting away > > old pages that have not been used for some period of time. > > > > 3. Currently we are still doing a large amount of processing in the > > page free path. Ideally we should look at getting away from trying to > > do so much per-cpu work and instead just have some small tasks that > > put the data needed in the page, and then have a separate thread > > walking the free_list checking that data, isolating the pages, hinting > > them, and then returning them back to the free_list. > > This is highly debatable. Whenever the is concurrency, there is the need > for locking (well, at least synchronization - maybe using existing locks > like the zone lock). The other thread has to run somewhere. One thread > per VCPU might not what we want ... sorting this out might be more > complicated than it would seem. I would suggest to defer the discussion > of this change to a later stage. It can be easily reworked later - in > theory :) I'm not suggesting anything too complex for now. I would be happy with just using the zone lock. The only other thing we would really need to make it work is some sort of bit we could set once a page has been hinted, and cleared when it is allocated. I"m leaning toward PG_owner_priv_1 at this point since it doesn't seem to be used in the buddy allocator but is heavily used/re-purposed in multiple other spots. > 1 and 2 you mention are the lower hanging fruits that will definitely > improve performance. Agreed. Although the challenge with 2 is getting to the page later instead of trying to immediately hint on the page we just freed. That is why I still thing 3 is going to tie in closely with 2. > -- > > Thanks, > > David / dhildenb