On Tue, May 04, 2021 at 01:04:17PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 04.05.21 12:32, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > On Tue, May 04, 2021 at 12:21:25PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > On 04.05.21 12:09, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 03:37:48PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > > > Let's support RAM_NORESERVE via MAP_NORESERVE on Linux. The flag has
> > > > > no
> > > > > effect on most shared mappings - except for hugetlbfs and anonymous
> > > > > memory.
> > > > >
> > > > > Linux man page:
> > > > > "MAP_NORESERVE: Do not reserve swap space for this mapping. When
> > > > > swap
> > > > > space is reserved, one has the guarantee that it is possible to
> > > > > modify
> > > > > the mapping. When swap space is not reserved one might get SIGSEGV
> > > > > upon a write if no physical memory is available. See also the
> > > > > discussion
> > > > > of the file /proc/sys/vm/overcommit_memory in proc(5). In kernels
> > > > > before
> > > > > 2.6, this flag had effect only for private writable mappings."
> > > > >
> > > > > Note that the "guarantee" part is wrong with memory overcommit in
> > > > > Linux.
> > > > >
> > > > > Also, in Linux hugetlbfs is treated differently - we configure
> > > > > reservation
> > > > > of huge pages from the pool, not reservation of swap space (huge pages
> > > > > cannot be swapped).
> > > > >
> > > > > The rough behavior is [1]:
> > > > > a) !Hugetlbfs:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) Without MAP_NORESERVE *or* with memory overcommit under Linux
> > > > > disabled ("/proc/sys/vm/overcommit_memory == 2"), the following
> > > > > accounting/reservation happens:
> > > > > For a file backed map
> > > > > SHARED or READ-only - 0 cost (the file is the map not swap)
> > > > > PRIVATE WRITABLE - size of mapping per instance
> > > > >
> > > > > For an anonymous or /dev/zero map
> > > > > SHARED - size of mapping
> > > > > PRIVATE READ-only - 0 cost (but of little use)
> > > > > PRIVATE WRITABLE - size of mapping per instance
> > > > >
> > > > > 2) With MAP_NORESERVE, no accounting/reservation happens.
> > > > >
> > > > > b) Hugetlbfs:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) Without MAP_NORESERVE, huge pages are reserved.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2) With MAP_NORESERVE, no huge pages are reserved.
> > > > >
> > > > > Note: With "/proc/sys/vm/overcommit_memory == 0", we were already able
> > > > > to configure it for !hugetlbfs globally; this toggle now allows
> > > > > configuring it more fine-grained, not for the whole system.
> > > > >
> > > > > The target use case is virtio-mem, which dynamically exposes memory
> > > > > inside a large, sparse memory area to the VM.
> > > >
> > > > Can you explain this use case in more real world terms, as I'm not
> > > > understanding what a mgmt app would actually do with this in
> > > > practice ?
> > >
> > > Let's consider huge pages for simplicity. Assume you have 128 free huge
> > > pages in your hypervisor that you want to dynamically assign to VMs.
> > >
> > > Further assume you have two VMs running. A workflow could look like
> > >
> > > 1. Assign all huge pages to VM 0
> > > 2. Reassign 64 huge pages to VM 1
> > > 3. Reassign another 32 huge pages to VM 1
> > > 4. Reasssign 16 huge pages to VM 0
> > > 5. ...
> > >
> > > Basically what we're used to doing with "ordinary" memory.
> >
> > What does this look like in terms of the memory backend configuration
> > when you boot VM 0 and VM 1 ?
> >
> > Are you saying that we boot both VMs with
> >
> > -object hostmem-memfd,size=128G,hugetlb=yes,hugetlbsize=1G,reserve=off
> >
> > and then we have another property set on 'virtio-mem' to tell it
> > how much/little of that 128 G, to actually give to the guest ?
> > How do we change that at runtime ?
>
> Roughly, yes. We only special-case memory backends managed by virtio-mem
> devices.
>
> An advanced example for a single VM could look like this:
>
> sudo build/qemu-system-x86_64 \
> ... \
> -m 4G,maxmem=64G \
> -smp sockets=2,cores=2 \
> -object hostmem-memfd,id=bmem0,size=2G,hugetlb=yes,hugetlbsize=2M \
> -numa node,nodeid=0,cpus=0-1,memdev=bmem0 \
> -object hostmem-memfd,id=bmem1,size=2G,hugetlb=yes,hugetlbsize=2M \
> -numa node,nodeid=1,cpus=2-3,memdev=bmem1 \
> ... \
> -object
> hostmem-memfd,id=mem0,size=30G,hugetlb=yes,hugetlbsize=2M,reserve=off \
> -device virtio-mem-pci,id=vmem0,memdev=mem0,node=0,requested-size=0G \
> -object
> hostmem-memfd,id=mem1,size=30G,hugetlb=yes,hugetlbsize=2M,reserve=off \
> -device virtio-mem-pci,id=vmem1,memdev=mem1,node=1,requested-size=0G \
> ... \
>
> We can request a size change by adjusting the "requested-size" property
> (e.g., via qom-set)
> and observe the current size by reading the "size" property (e.g., qom-get).
> Think of
> it as an advanced device-local memory balloon mixed with the concept of a
> memory hotplug.
Ok, so in this example, the initial GB of RAM has normal reserve=on
so if there's insufficient hugepages we'll see the startup failure IIUC.
What happens when we set qom-set requested-size=10GB at runtime, but there
are only 8 GB of hugepages left available ?
Regards,
Daniel
--
|: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
