linux-kernel - Re: [RFC for Linux] virtio_balloon: Add VIRTIO_BALLOON_F_THP

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <C4C6BAF7-C040-403D-997C-48C7AB5A7D6B@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 26 Mar 2020 08:54:04 +0100
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, Hui Zhu <teawater@...il.com>,
        jasowang@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, pagupta@...hat.com,
        mojha@...eaurora.org, namit@...are.com,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, qemu-devel@...gnu.org,
        Hui Zhu <teawaterz@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC for Linux] virtio_balloon: Add VIRTIO_BALLOON_F_THP_ORDER to handle THP spilt issue



> Am 26.03.2020 um 08:21 schrieb Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com>:
> 
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 09:51:25AM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> On 12.03.20 09:47, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 09:37:32AM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>> 2. You are essentially stealing THPs in the guest. So the fastest
>>>> mapping (THP in guest and host) is gone. The guest won't be able to make
>>>> use of THP where it previously was able to. I can imagine this implies a
>>>> performance degradation for some workloads. This needs a proper
>>>> performance evaluation.
>>> 
>>> I think the problem is more with the alloc_pages API.
>>> That gives you exactly the given order, and if there's
>>> a larger chunk available, it will split it up.
>>> 
>>> But for balloon - I suspect lots of other users,
>>> we do not want to stress the system but if a large
>>> chunk is available anyway, then we could handle
>>> that more optimally by getting it all in one go.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> So if we want to address this, IMHO this calls for a new API.
>>> Along the lines of
>>> 
>>>    struct page *alloc_page_range(gfp_t gfp, unsigned int min_order,
>>>                    unsigned int max_order, unsigned int *order)
>>> 
>>> the idea would then be to return at a number of pages in the given
>>> range.
>>> 
>>> What do you think? Want to try implementing that?
>> 
>> You can just start with the highest order and decrement the order until
>> your allocation succeeds using alloc_pages(), which would be enough for
>> a first version. At least I don't see the immediate need for a new
>> kernel API.
> 
> OK I remember now.  The problem is with reclaim. Unless reclaim is
> completely disabled, any of these calls can sleep. After it wakes up,
> we would like to get the larger order that has become available
> meanwhile.
> 

Yes, but that‘s a pure optimization IMHO.

So I think we should do a trivial implementation first and then see what we gain from a new allocator API. Then we might also be able to justify it using real numbers.

> 
>> -- 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> David / dhildenb
>