Message-ID: <20191014081724.GD22963@stefanha-x1.localdomain>
Date:   Mon, 14 Oct 2019 09:17:24 +0100
From:   Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>
To:     Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>
Cc:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>, kvm <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/5] vsock/virtio: limit the memory used per-socket

On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 03:40:48PM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 1, 2019 at 8:56 AM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 11:40:59AM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 10:04:29AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 01:30:26PM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> > > > > Since virtio-vsock was introduced, the buffers filled by the host
> > > > > and pushed to the guest using the vring, are directly queued in
> > > > > a per-socket list. These buffers are preallocated by the guest
> > > > > with a fixed size (4 KB).
> > > > >
> > > > > The maximum amount of memory used by each socket should be
> > > > > controlled by the credit mechanism.
> > > > > The default credit available per-socket is 256 KB, but if we use
> > > > > only 1 byte per packet, the guest can queue up to 262144 of 4 KB
> > > > > buffers, using up to 1 GB of memory per-socket. In addition, the
> > > > > guest will continue to fill the vring with new 4 KB free buffers
> > > > > to avoid starvation of other sockets.
> > > > >
> > > > > This patch mitigates this issue copying the payload of small
> > > > > packets (< 128 bytes) into the buffer of last packet queued, in
> > > > > order to avoid wasting memory.
> > > > >
> > > > > Reviewed-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>
> > > >
> > > > This is good enough for net-next, but for net I think we
> > > > should figure out how to address the issue completely.
> > > > Can we make the accounting precise? What happens to
> > > > performance if we do?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Since I'm back from holidays, I'm restarting this thread to figure out
> > > how to address the issue completely.
> > >
> > > I did a better analysis of the credit mechanism that we implemented in
> > > virtio-vsock to get a clearer view and I'd share it with you:
> > >
> > >     This issue affect only the "host->guest" path. In this case, when the
> > >     host wants to send a packet to the guest, it uses a "free" buffer
> > >     allocated by the guest (4KB).
> > >     The "free" buffers available for the host are shared between all
> > >     sockets, instead, the credit mechanism is per-socket, I think to
> > >     avoid the starvation of others sockets.
> > >     The guests re-fill the "free" queue when the available buffers are
> > >     less than half.
> > >
> > >     Each peer have these variables in the per-socket state:
> > >        /* local vars */
> > >        buf_alloc        /* max bytes usable by this socket
> > >                            [exposed to the other peer] */
> > >        fwd_cnt          /* increased when RX packet is consumed by the
> > >                            user space [exposed to the other peer] */
> > >        tx_cnt                 /* increased when TX packet is sent to the other peer */
> > >
> > >        /* remote vars  */
> > >        peer_buf_alloc   /* peer's buf_alloc */
> > >        peer_fwd_cnt     /* peer's fwd_cnt */
> > >
> > >     When a peer sends a packet, it increases the 'tx_cnt'; when the
> > >     receiver consumes the packet (copy it to the user-space buffer), it
> > >     increases the 'fwd_cnt'.
> > >     Note: increments are made considering the payload length and not the
> > >     buffer length.
> > >
> > >     The value of 'buf_alloc' and 'fwd_cnt' are sent to the other peer in
> > >     all packet headers or with an explicit CREDIT_UPDATE packet.
> > >
> > >     The local 'buf_alloc' value can be modified by the user space using
> > >     setsockopt() with optname=SO_VM_SOCKETS_BUFFER_SIZE.
> > >
> > >     Before to send a packet, the peer checks the space available:
> > >       credit_available = peer_buf_alloc - (tx_cnt - peer_fwd_cnt)
> > >     and it will send up to credit_available bytes to the other peer.
> > >
> > > Possible solutions considering Michael's advice:
> > > 1. Use the buffer length instead of the payload length when we increment
> > >    the counters:
> > >   - This approach will account precisely the memory used per socket.
> > >   - This requires changes in both guest and host.
> > >   - It is not compatible with old drivers, so a feature should be negotiated.
> > > 2. Decrease the advertised 'buf_alloc' taking count of bytes queued in
> > >    the socket queue but not used. (e.g. 256 byte used on 4K available in
> > >    the buffer)
> > >   - pkt->hdr.buf_alloc = buf_alloc - bytes_not_used.
> > >   - This should be compatible also with old drivers.
> > >
> > > Maybe the second is less invasive, but will it be too tricky?
> > > Any other advice or suggestions?
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance,
> > > Stefano
> >
> > OK let me try to clarify.  The idea is this:
> >
> > Let's say we queue a buffer of 4K, and we copy if len < 128 bytes.  This
> > means that in the worst case (128 byte packets), each byte of credit in
> > the socket uses up 4K/128 = 16 bytes of kernel memory. In fact we need
> > to also account for the virtio_vsock_pkt since I think it's kept around
> > until userspace consumes it.
> >
> > Thus given X buf alloc allowed in the socket, we should publish X/16
> > credits to the other side. This will ensure the other side does not send
> > more than X/16 bytes for a given socket and thus we won't need to
> > allocate more than X bytes to hold the data.
> >
> > We can play with the copy break value to tweak this.
> >
> 
> Hi Michael,
> sorry for the long silence, but I focused on multi-transport.
> 
> Before to implement your idea, I tried to do some calculations and
> looking better to our credit mechanism:
> 
>   buf_alloc = 256 KB (default, tunable through setsockopt)
>   sizeof(struct virtio_vsock_pkt) = 128
> 
>   - guest (we use preallocated 4 KB buffers to receive packets, copying
>     small packet - < 128 -)
>     worst_case = 129
>     buf_size = 4 KB
>     credit2mem = (buf_size + sizeof(struct virtio_vsock_pkt)) / worst_case = 32
> 
>     credit_published = buf_alloc / credit2mem = ~8 KB
>     Space for just 2 full packet (4 KB)
> 
>   - host (we copy packets from the vring, allocating the space for the payload)
>     worst_case = 1
>     buf_size = 1
>     credit2mem = (buf_size + sizeof(struct virtio_vsock_pkt)) / worst_case = 129
> 
>     credit_published = buf_alloc / credit2mem = ~2 KB
>     Less than a full packet (guest now can send up to 64 KB with a single
>     packet, so it will be limited to 2 KB)
> 
> Current memory consumption in the worst case if the RX queue is full:
>   - guest
>     mem = (buf_alloc / worst_case) *
>           (buf_size + sizeof(struct virtio_vsock_pkt) = ~8MB
> 
>   - host
>     mem = (buf_alloc / worst_case) *
>           (buf_size + sizeof(struct virtio_vsock_pkt) = ~32MB
> 
> I think that the performance with big packets will be affected,
> but I still have to try.
> 
> Another approach that I want to explore is to play with buf_alloc
> published to the peer.
> 
> One thing that's not clear to me yet is the meaning of
> SO_VM_SOCKETS_BUFFER_SIZE:
> - max amount of memory used in the RX queue
> - max amount of payload bytes in the RX queue (without overhead of
>   struct virtio_vsock_pkt + preallocated buffer)
> 
> From the 'include/uapi/linux/vm_sockets.h':
>     /* Option name for STREAM socket buffer size.  Use as the option name in
>      * setsockopt(3) or getsockopt(3) to set or get an unsigned long long that
>      * specifies the size of the buffer underlying a vSockets STREAM socket.
>      * Value is clamped to the MIN and MAX.
>      */
> 
>     #define SO_VM_SOCKETS_BUFFER_SIZE 0
> 
> Regardless, I think we need to limit memory consumption in some way.
> I'll check the implementation of other transports, to understand better.

SO_VM_SOCKETS_BUFFER_SIZE might have been useful for VMCI-specific
applications, but we should use SO_RCVBUF and SO_SNDBUF for portable
applications in the future.  Those socket options also work with other
address families.

I guess these sockopts are bypassed by AF_VSOCK because it doesn't use
the common skb queuing code in net/core/sock.c :(.  But one day we might
migrate to it...

Stefan

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists