lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Dec]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v20 4/7] virtio-balloon: VIRTIO_BALLOON_F_SG
From
Date
Wei Wang wrote:
> On 12/25/2017 10:51 PM, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > Wei Wang wrote:
> >>>>>> @@ -173,8 +292,15 @@ static unsigned fill_balloon(struct
> >>>>>> virtio_balloon *vb, size_t num)
> >>>>>> while ((page = balloon_page_pop(&pages))) {
> >>>>>> balloon_page_enqueue(&vb->vb_dev_info, page);
> >>>>>> + if (use_sg) {
> >>>>>> + if (xb_set_page(vb, page, &pfn_min, &pfn_max) < 0) {
> >>>>>> + __free_page(page);
> >>>>>> + continue;
> >>>>>> + }
> >>>>>> + } else {
> >>>>>> + set_page_pfns(vb, vb->pfns + vb->num_pfns, page);
> >>>>>> + }
> >>>>> Is this the right behaviour?
> >>>> I don't think so. In the worst case, we can set no bit using
> >>>> xb_set_page().
> >>>>> If we can't record the page in the xb,
> >>>>> wouldn't we rather send it across as a single page?
> >>>>>
> >>>> I think that we need to be able to fallback to !use_sg path when OOM.
> >>> I also have different thoughts:
> >>>
> >>> 1) For OOM, we have leak_balloon_sg_oom (oom has nothing to do with
> >>> fill_balloon), which does not use xbitmap to record pages, thus no
> >>> memory allocation.
> >>>
> >>> 2) If the memory is already under pressure, it is pointless to
> >>> continue inflating memory to the host. We need to give thanks to the
> >>> memory allocation failure reported by xbitmap, which gets us a chance
> >>> to release the inflated pages that have been demonstrated to cause the
> >>> memory pressure of the guest.
> >>>
> >> Forgot to add my conclusion: I think the above behavior is correct.
> >>
> > What is the desired behavior when hitting OOM path during inflate/deflate?
> > Once inflation started, the inflation logic is called again and again
> > until the balloon inflates to the requested size.
>
> The above is true, but I can't agree with the following. Please see below.
>
> > Such situation will
> > continue wasting CPU resource between inflate-due-to-host's-request versus
> > deflate-due-to-guest's-OOM. It is pointless but cannot stop doing pointless
> > thing.
>
> What we are doing here is to free the pages that were just allocated in
> this round of inflating. Next round will be sometime later when the
> balloon work item gets its turn to run. Yes, it will then continue to
> inflate.
> Here are the two cases that will happen then:
> 1) the guest is still under memory pressure, the inflate will fail at
> memory allocation, which results in a msleep(200), and then it exists
> for another time to run.
> 2) the guest isn't under memory pressure any more (e.g. the task which
> consumes the huge amount of memory is gone), it will continue to inflate
> as normal till the requested size.
>

How likely does 2) occur? It is not so likely. msleep(200) is enough to spam
the guest with puff messages. Next round is starting too quickly.

> I think what we are doing is a quite sensible behavior, except a small
> change I plan to make:
>
> while ((page = balloon_page_pop(&pages))) {
> - balloon_page_enqueue(&vb->vb_dev_info, page);
> if (use_sg) {
> if (xb_set_page(vb, page, &pfn_min, &pfn_max) <
> 0) {
> __free_page(page);
> continue;
> }
> } else {
> set_page_pfns(vb, vb->pfns + vb->num_pfns, page);
> }
> + balloon_page_enqueue(&vb->vb_dev_info, page);
>
> >
> > Also, as of Linux 4.15, only up to VIRTIO_BALLOON_ARRAY_PFNS_MAX pages (i.e.
> > 1MB) are invisible from deflate request. That amount would be an acceptable
> > error. But your patch makes more pages being invisible, for pages allocated
> > by balloon_page_alloc() without holding balloon_lock are stored into a local
> > variable "LIST_HEAD(pages)" (which means that balloon_page_dequeue() with
> > balloon_lock held won't be able to find pages not yet queued by
> > balloon_page_enqueue()), doesn't it? What if all memory pages were held in
> > "LIST_HEAD(pages)" and balloon_page_dequeue() was called before
> > balloon_page_enqueue() is called?
> >
>
> If we think of the balloon driver just as a regular driver or
> application, that will be a pretty nature thing. A regular driver can
> eat a huge amount of memory for its own usages, would this amount of
> memory be treated as an error as they are invisible to the
> balloon_page_enqueue?
>

No. Memory used by applications which consumed a lot of memory in their
mm_struct is reclaimed by the OOM killer/reaper. Drivers try to avoid
allocating more memory than they need. If drivers allocate more memory
than they need, they have a hook for releasing unused memory (i.e.
register_shrinker() or OOM notifier). What I'm saying here is that
the hook for releasing unused memory does not work unless memory held in
LIST_HEAD(pages) becomes visible to balloon_page_dequeue().

If a system has 128GB of memory, and 127GB of memory was stored into
LIST_HEAD(pages) upon first fill_balloon() request, and somebody held
balloon_lock from OOM notifier path from out_of_memory() before
fill_balloon() holds balloon_lock, leak_balloon_sg_oom() finds that
no memory can be freed because balloon_page_enqueue() was never called,
and allows the caller of out_of_memory() to invoke the OOM killer despite
there is 127GB of memory which can be freed if fill_balloon() was able
to hold balloon_lock before leak_balloon_sg_oom() holds balloon_lock.
I don't think that that amount is an acceptable error.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-12-26 11:38    [W:0.070 / U:1.516 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site