Zhiyi reported an infinite loop issue in VFIO use case. The cause of that
was a separate discussion, however during that I found a regression of
dirty sync slowness when profiling.
Each KVMMemoryListerner maintains an array of kvm memslots. Currently it's
statically allocated to be the max supported by the kernel. However after
Linux commit 4fc096a99e ("KVM: Raise the maximum number of user memslots"),
the max supported memslots reported now grows to some number large enough
so that it may not be wise to always statically allocate with the max
reported.
What's worse, QEMU kvm code still walks all the allocated memslots entries
to do any form of lookups. It can drastically slow down all memslot
operations because each of such loop can run over 32K times on the new
kernels.
Fix this issue by making the memslots to be allocated dynamically.
Here the initial size was set to 16 because it should cover the basic VM
usages, so that the hope is the majority VM use case may not even need to
grow at all (e.g. if one starts a VM with ./qemu-system-x86_64 by default
it'll consume 9 memslots), however not too large to waste memory.
There can also be even better way to address this, but so far this is the
simplest and should be already better even than before we grow the max
supported memslots. For example, in the case of above issue when VFIO was
attached on a 32GB system, there are only ~10 memslots used. So it could
be good enough as of now.
In the above VFIO context, measurement shows that the precopy dirty sync
shrinked from ~86ms to ~3ms after this patch applied. It should also apply
to any KVM enabled VM even without VFIO.
NOTE: we don't have a FIXES tag for this patch because there's no real
commit that regressed this in QEMU. Such behavior existed for a long time,
but only start to be a problem when the kernel reports very large
nr_slots_max value. However that's pretty common now (the kernel change
was merged in 2021) so we attached cc:stable because we'll want this change
to be backported to stable branches.
Cc: qemu-stable <qemu-stable@nongnu.org>
Reported-by: Zhiyi Guo <zhguo@redhat.com>
Tested-by: Zhiyi Guo <zhguo@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
---
include/sysemu/kvm_int.h | 1 +
accel/kvm/kvm-all.c | 87 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
accel/kvm/trace-events | 1 +
3 files changed, 74 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/sysemu/kvm_int.h b/include/sysemu/kvm_int.h
index 17483ff53b..2304537b93 100644
--- a/include/sysemu/kvm_int.h
+++ b/include/sysemu/kvm_int.h
@@ -46,6 +46,7 @@ typedef struct KVMMemoryListener {
MemoryListener listener;
KVMSlot *slots;
unsigned int nr_used_slots;
+ unsigned int nr_slots_allocated;
int as_id;
QSIMPLEQ_HEAD(, KVMMemoryUpdate) transaction_add;
QSIMPLEQ_HEAD(, KVMMemoryUpdate) transaction_del;
diff --git a/accel/kvm/kvm-all.c b/accel/kvm/kvm-all.c
index beb1988d12..e0430f08ea 100644
--- a/accel/kvm/kvm-all.c
+++ b/accel/kvm/kvm-all.c
@@ -69,6 +69,9 @@
#define KVM_GUESTDBG_BLOCKIRQ 0
#endif
+/* Default num of memslots to be allocated when VM starts */
+#define KVM_MEMSLOTS_NR_ALLOC_DEFAULT 16
+
struct KVMParkedVcpu {
unsigned long vcpu_id;
int kvm_fd;
@@ -165,6 +168,57 @@ void kvm_resample_fd_notify(int gsi)
}
}
+/**
+ * kvm_slots_grow(): Grow the slots[] array in the KVMMemoryListener
+ *
+ * @kml: The KVMMemoryListener* to grow the slots[] array
+ * @nr_slots_new: The new size of slots[] array
+ *
+ * Returns: True if the array grows larger, false otherwise.
+ */
+static bool kvm_slots_grow(KVMMemoryListener *kml, unsigned int nr_slots_new)
+{
+ unsigned int i, cur = kml->nr_slots_allocated;
+ KVMSlot *slots;
+
+ if (nr_slots_new > kvm_state->nr_slots) {
+ nr_slots_new = kvm_state->nr_slots;
+ }
+
+ if (cur >= nr_slots_new) {
+ /* Big enough, no need to grow, or we reached max */
+ return false;
+ }
+
+ if (cur == 0) {
+ slots = g_new0(KVMSlot, nr_slots_new);
+ } else {
+ assert(kml->slots);
+ slots = g_renew(KVMSlot, kml->slots, nr_slots_new);
+ /*
+ * g_renew() doesn't initialize extended buffers, however kvm
+ * memslots require fields to be zero-initialized. E.g. pointers,
+ * memory_size field, etc.
+ */
+ memset(&slots[cur], 0x0, sizeof(slots[0]) * (nr_slots_new - cur));
+ }
+
+ for (i = cur; i < nr_slots_new; i++) {
+ slots[i].slot = i;
+ }
+
+ kml->slots = slots;
+ kml->nr_slots_allocated = nr_slots_new;
+ trace_kvm_slots_grow(cur, nr_slots_new);
+
+ return true;
+}
+
+static bool kvm_slots_double(KVMMemoryListener *kml)
+{
+ return kvm_slots_grow(kml, kml->nr_slots_allocated * 2);
+}
+
unsigned int kvm_get_max_memslots(void)
{
KVMState *s = KVM_STATE(current_accel());
@@ -193,15 +247,26 @@ unsigned int kvm_get_free_memslots(void)
/* Called with KVMMemoryListener.slots_lock held */
static KVMSlot *kvm_get_free_slot(KVMMemoryListener *kml)
{
- KVMState *s = kvm_state;
+ unsigned int n;
int i;
- for (i = 0; i < s->nr_slots; i++) {
+ for (i = 0; i < kml->nr_slots_allocated; i++) {
if (kml->slots[i].memory_size == 0) {
return &kml->slots[i];
}
}
+ /*
+ * If no free slots, try to grow first by doubling. Cache the old size
+ * here to avoid another round of search: if the grow succeeded, it
+ * means slots[] now must have the existing "n" slots occupied,
+ * followed by one or more free slots starting from slots[n].
+ */
+ n = kml->nr_slots_allocated;
+ if (kvm_slots_double(kml)) {
+ return &kml->slots[n];
+ }
+
return NULL;
}
@@ -222,10 +287,9 @@ static KVMSlot *kvm_lookup_matching_slot(KVMMemoryListener *kml,
hwaddr start_addr,
hwaddr size)
{
- KVMState *s = kvm_state;
int i;
- for (i = 0; i < s->nr_slots; i++) {
+ for (i = 0; i < kml->nr_slots_allocated; i++) {
KVMSlot *mem = &kml->slots[i];
if (start_addr == mem->start_addr && size == mem->memory_size) {
@@ -267,7 +331,7 @@ int kvm_physical_memory_addr_from_host(KVMState *s, void *ram,
int i, ret = 0;
kvm_slots_lock();
- for (i = 0; i < s->nr_slots; i++) {
+ for (i = 0; i < kml->nr_slots_allocated; i++) {
KVMSlot *mem = &kml->slots[i];
if (ram >= mem->ram && ram < mem->ram + mem->memory_size) {
@@ -1071,7 +1135,7 @@ static int kvm_physical_log_clear(KVMMemoryListener *kml,
kvm_slots_lock();
- for (i = 0; i < s->nr_slots; i++) {
+ for (i = 0; i < kml->nr_slots_allocated; i++) {
mem = &kml->slots[i];
/* Discard slots that are empty or do not overlap the section */
if (!mem->memory_size ||
@@ -1719,12 +1783,8 @@ static void kvm_log_sync_global(MemoryListener *l, bool last_stage)
/* Flush all kernel dirty addresses into KVMSlot dirty bitmap */
kvm_dirty_ring_flush();
- /*
- * TODO: make this faster when nr_slots is big while there are
- * only a few used slots (small VMs).
- */
kvm_slots_lock();
- for (i = 0; i < s->nr_slots; i++) {
+ for (i = 0; i < kml->nr_slots_allocated; i++) {
mem = &kml->slots[i];
if (mem->memory_size && mem->flags & KVM_MEM_LOG_DIRTY_PAGES) {
kvm_slot_sync_dirty_pages(mem);
@@ -1839,12 +1899,9 @@ void kvm_memory_listener_register(KVMState *s, KVMMemoryListener *kml,
{
int i;
- kml->slots = g_new0(KVMSlot, s->nr_slots);
kml->as_id = as_id;
- for (i = 0; i < s->nr_slots; i++) {
- kml->slots[i].slot = i;
- }
+ kvm_slots_grow(kml, KVM_MEMSLOTS_NR_ALLOC_DEFAULT);
QSIMPLEQ_INIT(&kml->transaction_add);
QSIMPLEQ_INIT(&kml->transaction_del);
diff --git a/accel/kvm/trace-events b/accel/kvm/trace-events
index 82c65fd2ab..e43d18a869 100644
--- a/accel/kvm/trace-events
+++ b/accel/kvm/trace-events
@@ -36,3 +36,4 @@ kvm_io_window_exit(void) ""
kvm_run_exit_system_event(int cpu_index, uint32_t event_type) "cpu_index %d, system_even_type %"PRIu32
kvm_convert_memory(uint64_t start, uint64_t size, const char *msg) "start 0x%" PRIx64 " size 0x%" PRIx64 " %s"
kvm_memory_fault(uint64_t start, uint64_t size, uint64_t flags) "start 0x%" PRIx64 " size 0x%" PRIx64 " flags 0x%" PRIx64
+kvm_slots_grow(unsigned int old, unsigned int new) "%u -> %u"
--
2.45.017.09.2024 19:38, Peter Xu wrote:
> Zhiyi reported an infinite loop issue in VFIO use case. The cause of that
> was a separate discussion, however during that I found a regression of
> dirty sync slowness when profiling.
>
> Each KVMMemoryListerner maintains an array of kvm memslots. Currently it's
> statically allocated to be the max supported by the kernel. However after
> Linux commit 4fc096a99e ("KVM: Raise the maximum number of user memslots"),
> the max supported memslots reported now grows to some number large enough
> so that it may not be wise to always statically allocate with the max
> reported.
>
> What's worse, QEMU kvm code still walks all the allocated memslots entries
> to do any form of lookups. It can drastically slow down all memslot
> operations because each of such loop can run over 32K times on the new
> kernels.
>
> Fix this issue by making the memslots to be allocated dynamically.
>
> Here the initial size was set to 16 because it should cover the basic VM
> usages, so that the hope is the majority VM use case may not even need to
> grow at all (e.g. if one starts a VM with ./qemu-system-x86_64 by default
> it'll consume 9 memslots), however not too large to waste memory.
>
> There can also be even better way to address this, but so far this is the
> simplest and should be already better even than before we grow the max
> supported memslots. For example, in the case of above issue when VFIO was
> attached on a 32GB system, there are only ~10 memslots used. So it could
> be good enough as of now.
>
> In the above VFIO context, measurement shows that the precopy dirty sync
> shrinked from ~86ms to ~3ms after this patch applied. It should also apply
> to any KVM enabled VM even without VFIO.
>
> NOTE: we don't have a FIXES tag for this patch because there's no real
> commit that regressed this in QEMU. Such behavior existed for a long time,
> but only start to be a problem when the kernel reports very large
> nr_slots_max value. However that's pretty common now (the kernel change
> was merged in 2021) so we attached cc:stable because we'll want this change
> to be backported to stable branches.
Looking at this from qemu-stable PoV, I'm not 100% sure this change is good
for stable-7.2 series, because 7.2 lacks v8.1.0-1571-g5b23186a95
"kvm: Return number of free memslots" commit, which was a preparation for
for memory devices that consume multiple memslots.
I did a backport of this change (currently it is at the tip of staging-7.2
branch of https://gitlab.com/mjt0k/qemu.git) - I had to tweak context and
also to remove now-unused local variable in kvm-all.c. It builds and the
tests run fine, but I'm not really sure it does what it is intended to do.
Should anything else be picked up for 7.2 for all this to work, or should
this change not be back-ported to 7.2 ?
(for more recent releases, everything looks ok).
Thanks,
/mjt
Michael, On Fri, Oct 18, 2024 at 06:38:53PM +0300, Michael Tokarev wrote: > Looking at this from qemu-stable PoV, I'm not 100% sure this change is good > for stable-7.2 series, because 7.2 lacks v8.1.0-1571-g5b23186a95 > "kvm: Return number of free memslots" commit, which was a preparation for > for memory devices that consume multiple memslots. > > I did a backport of this change (currently it is at the tip of staging-7.2 > branch of https://gitlab.com/mjt0k/qemu.git) - I had to tweak context and > also to remove now-unused local variable in kvm-all.c. It builds and the > tests run fine, but I'm not really sure it does what it is intended to do. > > Should anything else be picked up for 7.2 for all this to work, or should > this change not be back-ported to 7.2 ? > > (for more recent releases, everything looks ok). I don't remember anything this series logically depends on (besides any context-wise change). If there's uncertainty / challenge from backporting to some stable branches from your POV, we can still keep things simple and skip the series, as it's only a perf regression and only happens during live migrations (which can enlarge the downtime, for example) but not daily VM use. Thanks, -- Peter Xu
21.10.2024 17:37, Peter Xu wrote: > Michael, > > On Fri, Oct 18, 2024 at 06:38:53PM +0300, Michael Tokarev wrote: >> Looking at this from qemu-stable PoV, I'm not 100% sure this change is good >> for stable-7.2 series, because 7.2 lacks v8.1.0-1571-g5b23186a95 >> "kvm: Return number of free memslots" commit, which was a preparation for >> for memory devices that consume multiple memslots. >> >> I did a backport of this change (currently it is at the tip of staging-7.2 >> branch of https://gitlab.com/mjt0k/qemu.git) - I had to tweak context and >> also to remove now-unused local variable in kvm-all.c. It builds and the >> tests run fine, but I'm not really sure it does what it is intended to do. >> >> Should anything else be picked up for 7.2 for all this to work, or should >> this change not be back-ported to 7.2 ? >> >> (for more recent releases, everything looks ok). > > I don't remember anything this series logically depends on (besides any > context-wise change). Well, 7.2 is a bit old by now, and the commit I already mentioned above is also quite old, - at the time you started working on this series, this commit (v8.1.0-1571-g5b23186a95) has been in the tree for a long time already. This change might be relevant here or might be not. > If there's uncertainty / challenge from backporting to some stable branches > from your POV, we can still keep things simple and skip the series, as it's > only a perf regression and only happens during live migrations (which can > enlarge the downtime, for example) but not daily VM use. For this change alone, I did the backport, I just am not sure it makes sense. It would be great if you take a look, including the change I mentioned above (it isn't in 7.2), there: https://gitlab.com/mjt0k/qemu/-/commits/staging-7.2 Or we can just drop it for 7.2 per the above. Thanks, /mjt
On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 10:05:23PM +0300, Michael Tokarev wrote: > 21.10.2024 17:37, Peter Xu wrote: > > Michael, > > > > On Fri, Oct 18, 2024 at 06:38:53PM +0300, Michael Tokarev wrote: > > > Looking at this from qemu-stable PoV, I'm not 100% sure this change is good > > > for stable-7.2 series, because 7.2 lacks v8.1.0-1571-g5b23186a95 > > > "kvm: Return number of free memslots" commit, which was a preparation for > > > for memory devices that consume multiple memslots. > > > > > > I did a backport of this change (currently it is at the tip of staging-7.2 > > > branch of https://gitlab.com/mjt0k/qemu.git) - I had to tweak context and > > > also to remove now-unused local variable in kvm-all.c. It builds and the > > > tests run fine, but I'm not really sure it does what it is intended to do. > > > > > > Should anything else be picked up for 7.2 for all this to work, or should > > > this change not be back-ported to 7.2 ? > > > > > > (for more recent releases, everything looks ok). > > > > I don't remember anything this series logically depends on (besides any > > context-wise change). > > Well, 7.2 is a bit old by now, and the commit I already mentioned above is > also quite old, - at the time you started working on this series, this > commit (v8.1.0-1571-g5b23186a95) has been in the tree for a long time > already. This change might be relevant here or might be not. That specific commit (5b23186a95) shouldn't be relevant. > > > If there's uncertainty / challenge from backporting to some stable branches > > from your POV, we can still keep things simple and skip the series, as it's > > only a perf regression and only happens during live migrations (which can > > enlarge the downtime, for example) but not daily VM use. > > For this change alone, I did the backport, I just am not sure it makes sense. > > It would be great if you take a look, including the change I mentioned above > (it isn't in 7.2), there: https://gitlab.com/mjt0k/qemu/-/commits/staging-7.2 > Or we can just drop it for 7.2 per the above. I checked the backport, it looks all good. Thanks, -- Peter Xu
On 17.09.24 18:38, Peter Xu wrote:
> Zhiyi reported an infinite loop issue in VFIO use case. The cause of that
> was a separate discussion, however during that I found a regression of
> dirty sync slowness when profiling.
>
> Each KVMMemoryListerner maintains an array of kvm memslots. Currently it's
> statically allocated to be the max supported by the kernel. However after
> Linux commit 4fc096a99e ("KVM: Raise the maximum number of user memslots"),
> the max supported memslots reported now grows to some number large enough
> so that it may not be wise to always statically allocate with the max
> reported.
>
> What's worse, QEMU kvm code still walks all the allocated memslots entries
> to do any form of lookups. It can drastically slow down all memslot
> operations because each of such loop can run over 32K times on the new
> kernels.
>
> Fix this issue by making the memslots to be allocated dynamically.
>
> Here the initial size was set to 16 because it should cover the basic VM
> usages, so that the hope is the majority VM use case may not even need to
> grow at all (e.g. if one starts a VM with ./qemu-system-x86_64 by default
> it'll consume 9 memslots), however not too large to waste memory.
>
> There can also be even better way to address this, but so far this is the
> simplest and should be already better even than before we grow the max
> supported memslots. For example, in the case of above issue when VFIO was
> attached on a 32GB system, there are only ~10 memslots used. So it could
> be good enough as of now.
>
> In the above VFIO context, measurement shows that the precopy dirty sync
> shrinked from ~86ms to ~3ms after this patch applied. It should also apply
> to any KVM enabled VM even without VFIO.
>
> NOTE: we don't have a FIXES tag for this patch because there's no real
> commit that regressed this in QEMU. Such behavior existed for a long time,
> but only start to be a problem when the kernel reports very large
> nr_slots_max value. However that's pretty common now (the kernel change
> was merged in 2021) so we attached cc:stable because we'll want this change
> to be backported to stable branches.
>
> Cc: qemu-stable <qemu-stable@nongnu.org>
> Reported-by: Zhiyi Guo <zhguo@redhat.com>
> Tested-by: Zhiyi Guo <zhguo@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
> ---
Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com> writes:
> Zhiyi reported an infinite loop issue in VFIO use case. The cause of that
> was a separate discussion, however during that I found a regression of
> dirty sync slowness when profiling.
>
> Each KVMMemoryListerner maintains an array of kvm memslots. Currently it's
> statically allocated to be the max supported by the kernel. However after
> Linux commit 4fc096a99e ("KVM: Raise the maximum number of user memslots"),
> the max supported memslots reported now grows to some number large enough
> so that it may not be wise to always statically allocate with the max
> reported.
>
> What's worse, QEMU kvm code still walks all the allocated memslots entries
> to do any form of lookups. It can drastically slow down all memslot
> operations because each of such loop can run over 32K times on the new
> kernels.
>
> Fix this issue by making the memslots to be allocated dynamically.
>
> Here the initial size was set to 16 because it should cover the basic VM
> usages, so that the hope is the majority VM use case may not even need to
> grow at all (e.g. if one starts a VM with ./qemu-system-x86_64 by default
> it'll consume 9 memslots), however not too large to waste memory.
>
> There can also be even better way to address this, but so far this is the
> simplest and should be already better even than before we grow the max
> supported memslots. For example, in the case of above issue when VFIO was
> attached on a 32GB system, there are only ~10 memslots used. So it could
> be good enough as of now.
>
> In the above VFIO context, measurement shows that the precopy dirty sync
> shrinked from ~86ms to ~3ms after this patch applied. It should also apply
> to any KVM enabled VM even without VFIO.
>
> NOTE: we don't have a FIXES tag for this patch because there's no real
> commit that regressed this in QEMU. Such behavior existed for a long time,
> but only start to be a problem when the kernel reports very large
> nr_slots_max value. However that's pretty common now (the kernel change
> was merged in 2021) so we attached cc:stable because we'll want this change
> to be backported to stable branches.
>
> Cc: qemu-stable <qemu-stable@nongnu.org>
> Reported-by: Zhiyi Guo <zhguo@redhat.com>
> Tested-by: Zhiyi Guo <zhguo@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Fabiano Rosas <farosas@suse.de>
© 2016 - 2024 Red Hat, Inc.