lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Sep]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 1/5] vsock/virtio: limit the memory used per-socket
On Sun, Sep 01, 2019 at 02:56:44AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin 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@redhat.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@redhat.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.

This seems like a reasonable solution. Hopefully the benchmark results
will come out okay too.

Stefan
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-09-02 10:39    [W:0.199 / U:1.272 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site