Re: [PATCH v2] virtio_balloon: add param to skip adjusting pages
From: David Hildenbrand <hidden>
Date: 2021-11-19 13:53:18
Possibly related (same subject, not in this thread)
- 2021-11-24 · Re: [PATCH v2] virtio_balloon: add param to skip adjusting pages · David Hildenbrand <hidden>
- 2021-11-24 · Re: [PATCH v2] virtio_balloon: add param to skip adjusting pages · "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
- 2021-11-18 · Re: [PATCH v2] virtio_balloon: add param to skip adjusting pages · David Hildenbrand <hidden>
On 19.11.21 14:36, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 19.11.21 08:22, David Stevens wrote:quoted
On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 8:17 PM David Hildenbrand [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
On 18.11.21 10:11, David Stevens wrote:quoted
From: David Stevens <redacted>Hi David,quoted
Add a module parameters to virtio_balloon to allow specifying whether or not the driver should call adjust_managed_page_count. If the parameter is set, it overrides the default behavior inferred from the deflate on OOM flag. This allows the balloon to operate without changing the amount of memory visible to userspace via /proc/meminfo or sysinfo, even on a system that cannot set the default on OOM flag. The motivation for this patch is to allow userspace to more accurately take advantage of virtio_balloon's cooperative memory control on a system without the ability to use deflate on OOM. As it stands, userspace has no way to know how much memory may be available on such a system, which makes tasks such as sizing caches impossible.But that user space also has no idea "when" that memory will become available, it could be never.Isn't this statement always true with respect to MemTotal/sysinfo.totalram? The kernel allocates and reserves memory, so there will always be some amount of memory that will never be available to userspace.Please note that early allocation, most importantly the memmap, are not accounted to MemTotal. This memory is similarly not managed by the buddy. (thus the name adjust_managed_page_count()) But yes, there will always be some memory that will be accounted to MemTotal that can never get freed. With memory ballooning it can easily be in the range of gigabytes.quoted
And if you look at things from the context of a specific userspace process, there will be other processes running and using memory. So while that statement is true with respect to this change, that is also true without this change. The specific details might be changed by the proposed parameter, but it wouldn't be introducing any fundamentally new behavior to Linux.Please note that the hyper-v balloon just recently switched to using adjust_managed_page_count() proper accounting reasons: commit d1df458cbfdb0c3384c03c7fbcb1689bc02a746c Author: Vitaly Kuznetsov [off-list ref] Date: Wed Dec 2 17:12:45 2020 +0100 hv_balloon: do adjust_managed_page_count() when ballooning/un-ballooning Unlike virtio_balloon/virtio_mem/xen balloon drivers, Hyper-V balloon driver does not adjust managed pages count when ballooning/un-ballooning and this leads to incorrect stats being reported, e.g. unexpected 'free' output. Note, the calculation in post_status() seems to remain correct: ballooned out pages are never 'available' and we manually add dm->num_pages_ballooned to 'commited'.quoted
quoted
This problem is similar to memory hotplug, where we don't know "when" more memory might get hotplugged.There are some meaningful differences with respect to hotplug. First, with the balloon, the kernel knows exactly what the maximum amount of memory the guest could have is.Not quite. There are hypervisors that add more memory using DIMMs (and as far as I heard virtio-mem) when required but always fake-unplug memory using virtio-balloon.quoted
Since the VM was created with that specific amount of memory, assuming that the host will be able to provide that amount of memory to the guest if the guest needs it is a relatively safe assumption (and if the system administrator doesn't want to make that assumption, they can skip using this parameter). On the other hand, with hotplug, the only maximum value the kernel has is the theoretical limit allowed by the hardware. That is clearly a different sort of limit, and of markedly less value.So what you actually want to expose to user space is the initial VM size. We cannot reliably say what the maximum in the future will be (memory hotplug), it can even be lower than the initial VM size. So it's a pure heuristic after all.quoted
Second, there's also the difference as to the nature of the event. If someone went through the trouble to configure a VM to use the virtio_balloon, then I think it's fair to say that inflating/deflating the balloon is a 'normal' event that can happen with some regularity.I disagree. Libvirt adds virtio-balloon as default to each and every VM. Some people use virtiio-balloon to logically unplug memory, to eventually never hotplug it again.quoted
On the other hand, I don't think anyone would say that hotplug of physical memory is a normal event.Well, I would say that :) The hyper-v balloon is a good example, and the xen balloon also hotplugs actual memory on demand. And it's becoming more popular in the virtio world with virtio-mem as well (which some cloud providers already support).quoted
quoted
With deflate-on-OOM this behavior makes sense, because the guest can use that memory whenever it wants -- it's actually available as soon as we need it.Well, by some definition of 'need'. It's available as soon as the kernel is about to OOM some process. By that point, we've probably already evicted a lot of caches, and the end user is going to be having a bad time. If we get to this point, given how poorly Linux usually behaves under low memory conditions, I think it is not an unreasonable viewpoint to prefer to OOM kill something, rather than to pull a paltry 1MB out of the balloon, at least on systems that are relatively resilient to OOMs.Don't get me wrong, I am absolutely not a fan of deflate-on-oom. I think it was a mistake, but apparently, there are some actual users.quoted
quoted
quoted
When deflate on OOM is not enabled, the current behavior of the virtio_balloon more or less resembles hotplugging individual pages, at least from an accounting perspective. This is basically hardcoding the requirement that totalram_pages must be available to the guest immediately, regardless of what the host does. While that is a valid policy, on Linux (which supports memory overcommit) with virtio_balloon (which is designed to facilitate overcommit in the host), it is not the only possible policy. The param added by this patch allows the guest to operate under the assumption that pages in the virtio_balloon will generally be made available when needed. This assumption may not always hold, but when it is violated, the guest will just fall back to the normal mechanisms for dealing with overcommitted memory. Independent of what policy the guest wants, the virtio_balloon device does not consider pages in the balloon as contributing to the guest's total amount of memory if deflate on OOM is not enabled. Ensure that the reported stats are consistent with this by adjusting totalram if a guest without deflate on OOM is skipping the calls to adjust_managed_page_count.What about simply exposing the number of inflated balloon pages ("logically offline pages") e.g., via /proc/meminfo to user space? It's then up to smart user space trying to be smart about memory that's not available right now and might never become available eventually in the future -- but still that user space wants to optimize for some eventuality.That approach would require a lot of changes to userspace - probably nearly everywhere that uses _SC_PHYS_PAGES or get_phys_pages, or anywhere that parses /proc/meminfo. Actually properly using "logically offline pages" would require an additional API for monitoring changes to the value, and updating to that sort of listener API would not be a localized change, especially since most programs do not account for memory hotplug and just use the amount of physical memory during initialization. Realistically, nearly all of the callers would simply add together "logically offline pages" and MemTotal.I'd appreciate a more generic approach for user space to figure out the "initial memory size" in a virtualized environment than adding some module parameter to virtio-balloon -- if that makes sense. MemTotal as is expresses how much memory the buddy currently manages, for example, excluding early allocations during boot, excluding actually unplugged memory and excluding logically unplugged memory. Adjusting that value makes perfect sense for virtio-balloon without deflate-on-oom. Instead of changing MemTotal semantics, I'd say we introduce some other mechanism to figure out the initial VM size -- "logically offline" memory is just an example. "MemMax" might be misleading and easily wrong. "MemInitial" might be an feasible option. Yes, some special user space applications would have to be adjusted.quoted
It's also not clear to me what utility the extra information would provide to userspace. If userspace wants to know how much memory is available, they should use MemAvailable. If userspace wants to have a rough estimate for the maximum amount of memory in the system, they would add together MemTotal and "logically offline pages". The value of MemTotal with a no-deflate-on-oom virtio-balloon is a value with a vague meaning that lies somewhere between the "maximum amount of memory" and the "current amount of memory". I don't really see any situations where it should clearly be used over one of MemAvailable or MemTotal + "logically offline pages".The issue is that any application that relies on MemTotal in a virtualized environment is most probably already suboptimal in some cases. You can rely on it and actually later someone will unplug (inflate balloon) memory or plug (deflate balloon) memory. Even MemAvailable is suboptimal because what about two applications that rely on that information at the same time?
BTW, the general issue here is that "we don't know what the hypervisor will do". Maybe "MemMax" actually could make sense, where we expose the maximum "MemTotal" we had so far since we were up an running. So the semantics wouldn't be "maximum possible", because we don't know that, but instead "maximum we had". -- Thanks, David / dhildenb _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization