linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] KVM: ioctl for populating guest

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: <55b6b3ec-eaa8-494b-9bc7-741fe0c3bc63@amazon.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2024 15:58:29 +0000
From: Nikita Kalyazin <kalyazin@...zon.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
	<corbet@....net>, <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC: <jthoughton@...gle.com>, <brijesh.singh@....com>, <michael.roth@....com>,
	<graf@...zon.de>, <jgowans@...zon.com>, <roypat@...zon.co.uk>,
	<derekmn@...zon.com>, <nsaenz@...zon.es>, <xmarcalx@...zon.com>, "Sean
 Christopherson" <seanjc@...gle.com>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] KVM: ioctl for populating guest_memfd



On 20/11/2024 15:13, David Hildenbrand wrote:
 > Hi!

Hi! :)

 >> Results:
 >>    - MAP_PRIVATE: 968 ms
 >>    - MAP_SHARED: 1646 ms
 >
 > At least here it is expected to some degree: as soon as the page cache
 > is involved map/unmap gets slower, because we are effectively
 > maintaining two datastructures (page tables + page cache) instead of
 > only a single one (page cache)
 >
 > Can you make sure that THP/large folios don't interfere in your
 > experiments (e.g., madvise(MADV_NOHUGEPAGE))?

I was using transparent_hugepage=never command line argument in my testing.

$ cat /sys/kernel/mm/transparent_hugepage/enabled
always madvise [never]

Is that sufficient to exclude the THP/large folio factor?

 >> While this logic is intuitive, its performance effect is more
 >> significant that I would expect.
 >
 > Yes. How much of the performance difference would remain if you hack out
 > the atomic op just to play with it? I suspect there will still be some
 > difference.

I have tried that, but could not see any noticeable difference in the 
overall results.

It looks like a big portion of the bottleneck has moved from 
shmem_get_folio_gfp/folio_mark_uptodate to 
finish_fault/__pte_offset_map_lock somehow.  I have no good explanation 
for why:

Orig:
                   - 69.62% do_fault
                      + 44.61% __do_fault
                      + 20.26% filemap_map_pages
                      + 3.48% finish_fault
Hacked:
                   - 67.39% do_fault
                      + 32.45% __do_fault
                      + 21.87% filemap_map_pages
                      + 11.97% finish_fault

Orig:
                      - 3.48% finish_fault
                         - 1.28% set_pte_range
                              0.96% folio_add_file_rmap_ptes
                         - 0.91% __pte_offset_map_lock
                              0.54% _raw_spin_lock
Hacked:
                      - 11.97% finish_fault
                         - 8.59% __pte_offset_map_lock
                            - 6.27% _raw_spin_lock
                                 preempt_count_add
                              1.00% __pte_offset_map
                         - 1.28% set_pte_range
                            - folio_add_file_rmap_ptes
                                 __mod_node_page_state

 > Note that we might improve allocation times with guest_memfd when
 > allocating larger folios.

I suppose it may not always be an option depending on requirements to 
consistency of the allocation latency.  Eg if a large folio isn't 
available at the time, the performance would degrade to the base case 
(please correct me if I'm missing something).

> Heh, now I spot that your comment was as reply to a series.

Yeah, sorry if it wasn't obvious.

> If your ioctl is supposed to to more than "allocating memory" like
> MAP_POPULATE/MADV_POPULATE+* ... then POPULATE is a suboptimal choice.
> Because for allocating memory, we would want to use fallocate() instead.
> I assume you want to "allocate+copy"?

Yes, the ultimate use case is "allocate+copy".

> I'll note that, as we're moving into the direction of moving
> guest_memfd.c into mm/guestmem.c, we'll likely want to avoid "KVM_*"
> ioctls, and think about something generic.

Good point, thanks.  Are we at the stage where some concrete API has 
been proposed yet? I might have missed that.

> Any clue how your new ioctl will interact with the WIP to have shared
> memory as part of guest_memfd? For example, could it be reasonable to
> "populate" the shared memory first (via VMA) and then convert that
> "allocated+filled" memory to private?

No, I can't immediately see why it shouldn't work.  My main concern 
would probably still be about the latency of the population stage as I 
can't see why it would improve compared to what we have now, because my 
feeling is this is linked with the sharedness property of guest_memfd.

> Cheers,
> 
> David / dhildenb