Re: [RFC for Linux] virtio_balloon: Add VIRTIO_BALLOON_F_THP_ORDER to handle THP spilt issue

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 04:03:18PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 31.03.20 15:37, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 03:32:05PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >> On 31.03.20 15:24, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 12:35:24PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >>>> On 26.03.20 10:49, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 08:54:04AM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Am 26.03.2020 um 08:21 schrieb Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ïOn Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 09:51:25AM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 12.03.20 09:47, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 09:37:32AM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> 2. You are essentially stealing THPs in the guest. So the fastest
> >>>>>>>>>> mapping (THP in guest and host) is gone. The guest won't be able to make
> >>>>>>>>>> use of THP where it previously was able to. I can imagine this implies a
> >>>>>>>>>> performance degradation for some workloads. This needs a proper
> >>>>>>>>>> performance evaluation.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I think the problem is more with the alloc_pages API.
> >>>>>>>>> That gives you exactly the given order, and if there's
> >>>>>>>>> a larger chunk available, it will split it up.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> But for balloon - I suspect lots of other users,
> >>>>>>>>> we do not want to stress the system but if a large
> >>>>>>>>> chunk is available anyway, then we could handle
> >>>>>>>>> that more optimally by getting it all in one go.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> So if we want to address this, IMHO this calls for a new API.
> >>>>>>>>> Along the lines of
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>    struct page *alloc_page_range(gfp_t gfp, unsigned int min_order,
> >>>>>>>>>                    unsigned int max_order, unsigned int *order)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> the idea would then be to return at a number of pages in the given
> >>>>>>>>> range.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> What do you think? Want to try implementing that?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> You can just start with the highest order and decrement the order until
> >>>>>>>> your allocation succeeds using alloc_pages(), which would be enough for
> >>>>>>>> a first version. At least I don't see the immediate need for a new
> >>>>>>>> kernel API.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> OK I remember now.  The problem is with reclaim. Unless reclaim is
> >>>>>>> completely disabled, any of these calls can sleep. After it wakes up,
> >>>>>>> we would like to get the larger order that has become available
> >>>>>>> meanwhile.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Yes, but thatâs a pure optimization IMHO.
> >>>>>> So I think we should do a trivial implementation first and then see what we gain from a new allocator API. Then we might also be able to justify it using real numbers.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Well how do you propose implement the necessary semantics?
> >>>>> I think we are both agreed that alloc_page_range is more or
> >>>>> less what's necessary anyway - so how would you approximate it
> >>>>> on top of existing APIs?
> >>>> diff --git a/include/linux/balloon_compaction.h b/include/linux/balloon_compaction.h
> > 
> > .....
> > 
> > 
> >>>> diff --git a/mm/balloon_compaction.c b/mm/balloon_compaction.c
> >>>> index 26de020aae7b..067810b32813 100644
> >>>> --- a/mm/balloon_compaction.c
> >>>> +++ b/mm/balloon_compaction.c
> >>>> @@ -112,23 +112,35 @@ size_t balloon_page_list_dequeue(struct balloon_dev_info *b_dev_info,
> >>>>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(balloon_page_list_dequeue);
> >>>>  
> >>>>  /*
> >>>> - * balloon_page_alloc - allocates a new page for insertion into the balloon
> >>>> - *			page list.
> >>>> + * balloon_pages_alloc - allocates a new page (of at most the given order)
> >>>> + * 			 for insertion into the balloon page list.
> >>>>   *
> >>>>   * Driver must call this function to properly allocate a new balloon page.
> >>>>   * Driver must call balloon_page_enqueue before definitively removing the page
> >>>>   * from the guest system.
> >>>>   *
> >>>> + * Will fall back to smaller orders if allocation fails. The order of the
> >>>> + * allocated page is stored in page->private.
> >>>> + *
> >>>>   * Return: struct page for the allocated page or NULL on allocation failure.
> >>>>   */
> >>>> -struct page *balloon_page_alloc(void)
> >>>> +struct page *balloon_pages_alloc(int order)
> >>>>  {
> >>>> -	struct page *page = alloc_page(balloon_mapping_gfp_mask() |
> >>>> -				       __GFP_NOMEMALLOC | __GFP_NORETRY |
> >>>> -				       __GFP_NOWARN);
> >>>> -	return page;
> >>>> +	struct page *page;
> >>>> +
> >>>> +	while (order >= 0) {
> >>>> +		page = alloc_pages(balloon_mapping_gfp_mask() |
> >>>> +				   __GFP_NOMEMALLOC | __GFP_NORETRY |
> >>>> +				   __GFP_NOWARN, order);
> >>>> +		if (page) {
> >>>> +			set_page_private(page, order);
> >>>> +			return page;
> >>>> +		}
> >>>> +		order--;
> >>>> +	}
> >>>> +	return NULL;
> >>>>  }
> >>>> -EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(balloon_page_alloc);
> >>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(balloon_pages_alloc);
> >>>>  
> >>>>  /*
> >>>>   * balloon_page_enqueue - inserts a new page into the balloon page list.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I think this will try to invoke direct reclaim from the first iteration
> >>> to free up the max order.
> >>
> >> %__GFP_NORETRY: The VM implementation will try only very lightweight
> >> memory direct reclaim to get some memory under memory pressure (thus it
> >> can sleep). It will avoid disruptive actions like OOM killer.
> >>
> >> Certainly good enough for a first version I would say, no?
> > 
> > Frankly how well that behaves would depend a lot on the workload.
> > Can regress just as well.
> > 
> > For the 1st version I'd prefer something that is the least disruptive,
> > and that IMHO means we only trigger reclaim at all in the same configuration
> > as now - when we can't satisfy the lowest order allocation.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> > 
> > Anything else would be a huge amount of testing with all kind of
> > workloads.
> > 
> 
> So doing a "& ~__GFP_RECLAIM" in case order > 0? (as done in
> GFP_TRANSHUGE_LIGHT)

That will improve the situation when reclaim is not needed, but leave
the problem in place for when it's needed: if reclaim does trigger, we
can get a huge free page and immediately break it up.

So it's ok as a first step but it will make the second step harder as
we'll need to test with reclaim :).


> -- 
> Thanks,
> 
> David / dhildenb