Message-ID: <be257778-3ecb-8f12-2d51-451a5e16fd3f@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 12 Mar 2019 22:53:31 +0100
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>,
        Nitesh Narayan Lal <nitesh@...hat.com>
Cc:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
        kvm list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, lcapitulino@...hat.com,
        pagupta@...hat.com, wei.w.wang@...el.com,
        Yang Zhang <yang.zhang.wz@...il.com>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>, dodgen@...gle.com,
        Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
        dhildenb@...hat.com, Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][Patch v9 2/6] KVM: Enables the kernel to isolate guest free
 pages

On 12.03.19 22:13, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 12:46 PM Nitesh Narayan Lal <nitesh@...hat.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 3/8/19 4:39 PM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 11:39 AM Nitesh Narayan Lal <nitesh@...hat.com> wrote:
>>>> On 3/8/19 2:25 PM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 11:10 AM Nitesh Narayan Lal <nitesh@...hat.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/8/19 1:06 PM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 6:32 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com> 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 :)

1 and 2 you mention are the lower hanging fruits that will definitely
improve performance.

-- 

Thanks,

David / dhildenb

Powered by blists - more mailing lists