Message ID | 20230908142136.403541-1-david@redhat.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | virtio-mem: Expose device memory through multiple memslots | expand |
@MST, any comment on the vhost bits (mostly uncontroversial and only in the memslot domain)? I'm planning on queuing this myself (but will wait a bit more), unless you want to take it. On 08.09.23 16:21, David Hildenbrand wrote: > Quoting from patch #14: > > Having large virtio-mem devices that only expose little memory to a VM > is currently a problem: we map the whole sparse memory region into the > guest using a single memslot, resulting in one gigantic memslot in KVM. > KVM allocates metadata for the whole memslot, which can result in quite > some memory waste. > > Assuming we have a 1 TiB virtio-mem device and only expose little (e.g., > 1 GiB) memory, we would create a single 1 TiB memslot and KVM has to > allocate metadata for that 1 TiB memslot: on x86, this implies allocating > a significant amount of memory for metadata: > > (1) RMAP: 8 bytes per 4 KiB, 8 bytes per 2 MiB, 8 bytes per 1 GiB > -> For 1 TiB: 2147483648 + 4194304 + 8192 = ~ 2 GiB (0.2 %) > > With the TDP MMU (cat /sys/module/kvm/parameters/tdp_mmu) this gets > allocated lazily when required for nested VMs > (2) gfn_track: 2 bytes per 4 KiB > -> For 1 TiB: 536870912 = ~512 MiB (0.05 %) > (3) lpage_info: 4 bytes per 2 MiB, 4 bytes per 1 GiB > -> For 1 TiB: 2097152 + 4096 = ~2 MiB (0.0002 %) > (4) 2x dirty bitmaps for tracking: 2x 1 bit per 4 KiB page > -> For 1 TiB: 536870912 = 64 MiB (0.006 %) > > So we primarily care about (1) and (2). The bad thing is, that the > memory consumption doubles once SMM is enabled, because we create the > memslot once for !SMM and once for SMM. > > Having a 1 TiB memslot without the TDP MMU consumes around: > * With SMM: 5 GiB > * Without SMM: 2.5 GiB > Having a 1 TiB memslot with the TDP MMU consumes around: > * With SMM: 1 GiB > * Without SMM: 512 MiB > > ... and that's really something we want to optimize, to be able to just > start a VM with small boot memory (e.g., 4 GiB) and a virtio-mem device > that can grow very large (e.g., 1 TiB). > > Consequently, using multiple memslots and only mapping the memslots we > really need can significantly reduce memory waste and speed up > memslot-related operations. Let's expose the sparse RAM memory region using > multiple memslots, mapping only the memslots we currently need into our > device memory region container. > > The hyper-v balloon driver has similar demands [1]. > > For virtio-mem, this has to be turned manually on ("multiple-memslots=on"), > due to the interaction with vhost (below). > > If we have less than 509 memslots available, we always default to a single > memslot. Otherwise, we automatically decide how many memslots to use > based on a simple heuristic (see patch #12), and try not to use more than > 256 memslots across all memory devices: our historical DIMM limit. > > As soon as any memory devices automatically decided on using more than > one memslot, vhost devices that support less than 509 memslots (e.g., > currently most vhost-user devices like with virtiofsd) can no longer be > plugged as a precaution. > > Quoting from patch #12: > > Plugging vhost devices with less than 509 memslots available while we > have memory devices plugged that consume multiple memslots due to > automatic decisions can be problematic. Most configurations might just fail > due to "limit < used + reserved", however, it can also happen that these > memory devices would suddenly consume memslots that would actually be > required by other memslot consumers (boot, PCI BARs) later. Note that this > has always been sketchy with vhost devices that support only a small number > of memslots; but we don't want to make it any worse.So let's keep it simple > and simply reject plugging such vhost devices in such a configuration. > > Eventually, all vhost devices that want to be fully compatible with such > memory devices should support a decent number of memslots (>= 509). > > > The recommendation is to plug such vhost devices before the virtio-mem > decides, or to not set "multiple-memslots=on". As soon as these devices > support a reasonable number of memslots (>= 509), this will start working > automatically. > > I run some tests on x86_64, now also including vfio tests. Seems to work > as expected, even when multiple memslots are used. > > > Patch #1 -- #3 are from [2] that were not picked up yet. > > Patch #4 -- #12 add handling of multiple memslots to memory devices > > Patch #13 -- #14 add "multiple-memslots=on" support to virtio-mem > > Patch #15 -- #16 make sure that virtio-mem memslots can be enabled/disable > atomically > > v2 -> v3: > * "kvm: Return number of free memslots" > -> Return 0 in stub > * "kvm: Add stub for kvm_get_max_memslots()" > -> Return 0 in stub > * Adjust other patches to check for kvm_enabled() before calling > kvm_get_free_memslots()/kvm_get_max_memslots() > * Add RBs > > v1 -> v2: > * Include patches from [1] > * A lot of code simplification and reorganization, too many to spell out > * don't add a general soft-limit on memslots, to avoid warning in sane > setups > * Simplify handling of vhost devices with a small number of memslots: > simply fail plugging them > * "virtio-mem: Expose device memory via multiple memslots if enabled" > -> Fix one "is this the last memslot" check > * Much more testing > > > [1] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/cover.1689786474.git.maciej.szmigiero@oracle.com > [2] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20230523185915.540373-1-david@redhat.com > > Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> > Cc: Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com> > Cc: Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong.eric@gmail.com> > Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> > Cc: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com> > Cc: "Philippe Mathieu-Daudé" <philmd@linaro.org> > Cc: Eduardo Habkost <eduardo@habkost.net> > Cc: Marcel Apfelbaum <marcel.apfelbaum@gmail.com> > Cc: Yanan Wang <wangyanan55@huawei.com> > Cc: Michal Privoznik <mprivozn@redhat.com> > Cc: Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> > Cc: Gavin Shan <gshan@redhat.com> > Cc: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com> > Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com> > Cc: Maciej S. Szmigiero <mail@maciej.szmigiero.name> > Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org > > David Hildenbrand (16): > vhost: Rework memslot filtering and fix "used_memslot" tracking > vhost: Remove vhost_backend_can_merge() callback > softmmu/physmem: Fixup qemu_ram_block_from_host() documentation > kvm: Return number of free memslots > vhost: Return number of free memslots > memory-device: Support memory devices with multiple memslots > stubs: Rename qmp_memory_device.c to memory_device.c > memory-device: Track required and actually used memslots in > DeviceMemoryState > memory-device,vhost: Support memory devices that dynamically consume > memslots > kvm: Add stub for kvm_get_max_memslots() > vhost: Add vhost_get_max_memslots() > memory-device,vhost: Support automatic decision on the number of > memslots > memory: Clarify mapping requirements for RamDiscardManager > virtio-mem: Expose device memory via multiple memslots if enabled > memory,vhost: Allow for marking memory device memory regions > unmergeable > virtio-mem: Mark memslot alias memory regions unmergeable > > MAINTAINERS | 1 + > accel/kvm/kvm-all.c | 35 ++- > accel/stubs/kvm-stub.c | 9 +- > hw/mem/memory-device.c | 196 ++++++++++++- > hw/virtio/vhost-stub.c | 9 +- > hw/virtio/vhost-user.c | 21 +- > hw/virtio/vhost-vdpa.c | 1 - > hw/virtio/vhost.c | 103 +++++-- > hw/virtio/virtio-mem-pci.c | 21 ++ > hw/virtio/virtio-mem.c | 272 +++++++++++++++++- > include/exec/cpu-common.h | 15 + > include/exec/memory.h | 27 +- > include/hw/boards.h | 14 +- > include/hw/mem/memory-device.h | 57 ++++ > include/hw/virtio/vhost-backend.h | 9 +- > include/hw/virtio/vhost.h | 3 +- > include/hw/virtio/virtio-mem.h | 23 +- > include/sysemu/kvm.h | 4 +- > include/sysemu/kvm_int.h | 1 + > softmmu/memory.c | 35 ++- > softmmu/physmem.c | 17 -- > .../{qmp_memory_device.c => memory_device.c} | 10 + > stubs/meson.build | 2 +- > 23 files changed, 779 insertions(+), 106 deletions(-) > rename stubs/{qmp_memory_device.c => memory_device.c} (56%) >
On 11.09.23 09:45, David Hildenbrand wrote: > @MST, any comment on the vhost bits (mostly uncontroversial and only in > the memslot domain)? > > I'm planning on queuing this myself (but will wait a bit more), unless > you want to take it. I'm queuing this to https://github.com/davidhildenbrand/qemu.git mem-next and plan on sending a PULL request on Friday. So if anybody has objections, please let me know ASAP :)
On 19.09.23 10:20, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 11.09.23 09:45, David Hildenbrand wrote: >> @MST, any comment on the vhost bits (mostly uncontroversial and only in >> the memslot domain)? >> >> I'm planning on queuing this myself (but will wait a bit more), unless >> you want to take it. > > I'm queuing this to > > https://github.com/davidhildenbrand/qemu.git mem-next > > and plan on sending a PULL request on Friday. > > So if anybody has objections, please let me know ASAP :) > .... and I dropped it again after realizing that migration needs care (activate memslots on migrationd estination). I'll look into that and resend once that is fixed.