On 11/9/2020 7:21 PM, Martin Kletzander wrote:
On Sat, Nov 07, 2020 at 10:41:52AM +0800, Zhong, Luyao wrote:On 11/4/2020 9:02 PM, Martin Kletzander wrote:On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 10:38:51PM +0800, Zhong, Luyao wrote:On 10/16/2020 9:32 PM, Zang, Rui wrote:How about if “migratable” is set, “mode” should be ignored/omitted? So any setting of “mode” will be rejected with an error indicating an invalid configuration. We can say in the doc that “migratable” and “mode” shall not be set together. So even the default value of “mode” is not taken.If "mode" is not set, it's the same as setting "strict" value ('strict' is the default value). It involves some code detail, it will be translated to enumerated type, the value is 0 when mode not set or set to 'strict'. The code is in some fixed skeleton, so it's not easy to modify.Well I see it as it is "strict". It does not mean "strict cgroup setting",because cgroups are just one of the ways to enforce this. Look at it this way: mode can be: - strict: only these nodes can be used for the memory - preferred: there nodes should be preferred, but allocation should not fail - interleave: interleave the memory between these nodes Due to the naming this maps to cgroup settings 1:1.Sorry, I misspoke, this does not map to cgroup settings at all, in cgroups you can only set "strict" (by using cpuset.mems) and that's it. There is no way toset preferred or interleaved mapping, sorry.
memory policy is independent of cpuset.memsI quote here "Memory policies should not be confused with cpusets (Documentation/admin-guide/cgroup-v1/cpusets.rst) which is an administrative mechanism for restricting the nodes from which memory may be allocated by a set of processes. Memory policies are a programming interface that a NUMA-aware application can take advantage of. When both cpusets and policies are applied to a task, the restrictions of the cpuset takes priority. See Memory Policies and cpusets below for more details."[1]
So using cpuset.mems does not mean set "strict" memory policy if I understand it correctly, we can set cpuset.mems with any memory policy.
[1]https://www.infradead.org/~mchehab/kernel_docs/admin-guide/mm/numa_memory_policy.html
as I mentioned above, using "cpuset.mems" does not mean "strict" memory policy.But now we have another way of enforcing this, using qemu cmdline option. The names actually map 1:1 to those as well:https://gitlab.com/qemu-project/qemu/-/blob/master/qapi/machine.json#L901So my idea was that we would add a movable/migratable/whatever attribute that would tell us which way for enforcing we use because there does not seem to be "one size fits all" solution. Am I misunderstanding this discussion? Please correct me if I am. Thank you.Actually I need a default memory policy(memory policy is 'hard coded' into the kernel) support, I thought "migratable" was enough to indicateSo I am getting on your track, yes. What you mean is basically MPOL_DEFAULT and that's where the naming probably comes from, right? Anyway, what we're trying to do is not restrict us from other options, even if they are only possible in the future. So instead of adding "default" which would actually mean "strict" (because you still use cpuset.mems) which would restrict us from potentiallybeing able to migrate with a different policy than "strict" (even though itmight not make sense for "preferred", for example) and it's also a bit confusing
for users, I suggested we add "migratable" which restricts just the qemuoptions. Of course, "migratable" only makes sense with "strict" now, but that's fine. The XML provides a possibility for something we don't support, but we can forbid that combination for the sake of clarity of the other option that _is_supported. I'll try to propose my idea based on your patch from Nov 3rd and it mightimprove my communication. I feels difficult for me to explain myself withoutthe code. I just need to deal with a lot of other emails first.
Thank you in advance. Let's discuss later based on the patch. Regards, Luyao
that we rely on operating system to operate memory policy. So when "migratable" is set, "mode" should not be set. But when I was coding, I found "mode" default value is "strict", it is always "strict" even if "migratable" is yes, that means we configure two different memory policies at the same time. Then I still need a new option for "mode" to make it not conflicting with the "migratable", then if we have the new option("default") for "mode", it seems we can drop "migratable". Besides, we can make "mode" being a "one size fits all" solution., just reject the different "mode" value config in memnode element when "mode" is "default" in memory element. I summary it in the new email https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2020-November/msg00084.html Sorry I didn't make it easy to understand. Regards, LuyaoSo I need a option to indicate "I don't specify any mode.".在 2020年10月16日，20:34，Zhong, Luyao <luyao.zhong@xxxxxxxxx> 写道： Hi Martin, Peter and other experts, We got a consensus that we need introducing a new "migratable" attribute before. But in implementation, I found introducing a new 'default' option for existing mode attribute is still neccessary. I have a initial patch for 'migratable' and Peter gave some comments already.https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2020-October/msg00396.htmlCurrent issue is, if I set 'migratable', any 'mode' should be ignored. Peter commented that I can't rely on docs to tell users some config is invalid, I need to reject the config in the code, I completely agree with that. But the 'mode' default value is 'strict', it will always conflict with the 'migratable', at the end I still need introducing a new option for 'mode' which can be a legal config when 'migratable' is set. If we have 'default' option, is 'migratable' still needed then? FYI. The 'mode' is corresponding to memory policy, there already a notion of default memory policy. quote: System Default Policy: this policy is "hard coded" into the kernel. (https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/vm/numa_memory_policy.txt) So it might be easier to understand if we introduce a 'default' option directly. Regards, LuyaoOn 8/26/2020 6:20 AM, Martin Kletzander wrote:On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 09:42:36PM +0800, Zhong, Luyao wrote: On 8/19/2020 11:24 PM, Martin Kletzander wrote:On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 07:49:30AM +0000, Zang, Rui wrote:-----Original Message----- From: Martin Kletzander <mkletzan@xxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Monday, August 17, 2020 4:58 PM To: Zhong, Luyao <luyao.zhong@xxxxxxxxx>Cc: libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx; Zang, Rui <rui.zang@xxxxxxxxx>; MichalPrivoznik <mprivozn@xxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] add a new 'default' option for attribute mode in numatune On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 04:39:42PM +0800, Zhong, Luyao wrote:On 8/7/2020 4:24 PM, Martin Kletzander wrote:On Fri, Aug 07, 2020 at 01:27:59PM +0800, Zhong, Luyao wrote:On 8/3/2020 7:00 PM, Martin Kletzander wrote:On Mon, Aug 03, 2020 at 05:31:56PM +0800, Luyao Zhong wrote:Hi Libvirt experts, I would like enhence the numatune snippet configuration. Given a example snippet: <domain>  ...  <numatune>   <memory mode="strict" nodeset="1-4,^3"/>   <memnode cellid="0" mode="strict" nodeset="1"/>   <memnode cellid="2" mode="preferred" nodeset="2"/>  </numatune>  ... </domain> Currently, attribute mode is either 'interleave', 'strict', or 'preferred', I propose to add a new 'default' option. I give the reason as following. Presume we are using cgroups v1, Libvirt sets cpuset.mems for all vcpu threads according to 'nodeset' in memory element. And translate the memnode element to qemu config options (--objectmemory-backend-ram) for per numa cell, which invoking mbind()system call at the end.[1] But what if we want using default memory policy and request each guest numa cell pinned to different host memory nodes? We can't use mbind via qemu config options, because (I quoto here) "For MPOL_DEFAULT, the nodemask and maxnode arguments must be specify the empty set of nodes." [2] So my solution is introducing a new 'default' option for attribute mode. e.g. <domain>  ...  <numatune>   <memory mode="default" nodeset="1-2"/>   <memnode cellid="0" mode="default" nodeset="1"/>   <memnode cellid="1" mode="default" nodeset="2"/>  </numatune>  ... </domain> If the mode is 'default', libvirt should avoid generating qemu command line '--object memory-backend-ram', and invokes cgroups to set cpuset.mems for per guest numa combining with numa topology config. Presume the numa topology is : <cpu>  ...  <numa>   <cell id='0' cpus='0-3' memory='512000' unit='KiB' />   <cell id='1' cpus='4-7' memory='512000' unit='KiB' />  </numa>  ... </cpu> Then libvirt should set cpuset.mems to '1' for vcpus 0-3, and '2' for vcpus 4-7. Is this reasonable and feasible? Welcome any comments.There are couple of problems here. The memory is not (always) allocated by the vCPU threads. I also remember it to not be allocated by the process, but in KVM in a way that was not affected by the cgroup settings.Thanks for your reply. Maybe I don't get what you mean, could you give me more context? But what I proposed will have no effect on other memory allocation.Check how cgroups work. We can set the memory nodes that a process will allocate from. However to set the node for the process(thread) QEMU needs to be started with the vCPU threads alreadyspawned (albeit stopped). And for that QEMU already allocates some memory. Moreover if extra memory was allocated after we set the cpuset.mems it is not guaranteed that it will be allocated by the vCPU in that NUMA cell, it might be done in the emulator instead or the KVM module in the kernel in which case it might not be accounted for the process actually causing the allocation (as we've already seen with Linux). In all these cases cgroups will not do what you want them to do. The last case might be fixed, the first ones are by default not going to work.That might be fixed now, however. But basically what we have against is all the reasons why we started using QEMU's command line arguments for all that.I'm not proposing use QEMU's command line arguments, on contrary I want using cgroups setting to support a new config/requirement. I give a solution about if we require default memory policy and memory numa pinning.And I'm suggesting you look at the commit log to see why we *had* to add these command line arguments, even though I think I managed todescribe most of them above already (except for one that _might_already be fixed in the kernel). I understand the git log is huge and the code around NUMA memory allocation was changing a lot, so I hope my explanation will be enough.Thank you for detailed explanation, I think I get it now. We can't guarantee memory allocation matching requirement since there is a time slot before setting cpuset.mems.That's one of the things, although this one could be avoided (by setting a global cgroup before exec()).Thanks, LuyaoI'm not trying to fix something, I propose how to support a newSorry, but I think it will more likely break rather than fix stuff. Maybe this could be dealt with by a switch in `qemu.conf` with a huge warning above it.requirement just like I stated above.I guess we should take a couple of steps back, I don't get what you are trying to achieve. Maybe if you describe your use case it will be easier to reach a conclusion.Yeah, I do have a usecase I didn't mention before. It's a feature in kernel but not merged yet, we call it memory tiering. (https://lwn.net/Articles/802544/) If memory tiering is enabled on host, DRAM is top tier memory, and PMEM(persistent memory) is second tier memory, PMEM is shown as numa node without cpu. For short, pages can be migrated between DRAM and PMEM based on DRAM pressure and how cold/hot they are. We could configure multiple memory migrating path. For example, node 0: DRAM, node 1: DRAM, node 2: PMEM, node 3: PMEM we can make 0+2 to a group, and 1+3 to a group. In each group, page is allowed to migrated down(demotion) and up(promotion). If **we want our VMs utilizing memory tiering and with NUMA topology**, we need handle the guest memory mapping to host memory, that means we need bind each guest numa node to a memory nodes group(DRAM node +PMEMnode) on host. For example, guest node 0 -> host node 0+2. However, only cgroups setting can make the memory tiering work, if we use mbind() system call, demoted pages will never go back to DRAM. That's why I propose to add 'default' option and bypass mbind in QEMU. I hope I make myself understandable. I'll appreciate if you could give some suggestion.This comes around every couple of months/years and bites us in theback no matter what way we go (every time there is someone who wants it the other way). That's why I think there could be a way for the user to specify whether they will likely move the memory or not and based on that we would specify `host-nodes` and `policy` to qemu or not. I think I even suggested thisbefore (or probably delegated it to someone else for a suggestion so that there is more discussion), but nobody really replied.So what we need, I think, is a way for someone to set a per-domaininformation whether we should bind the memory to nodes in a changeable fashion or not. I'd like to have it in as well. The way we need to do that is, probably, per- domain, because adding yet another switch for each place in the XML where wecan select a NUMA memory binding would be a suicide. There shouldalso be no need for this to be enabled per memory-(module, node), so it should work fine.Thanks for letting us know your vision about this. From what I understood, the "changeable fashion" means that the guest numa cell binding can be changed out of band after initial binding, either by system admin or the operating system (memory tiering in our case), or whatever the third party is. Is that perception correct?Yes. If the user wants to have the possibility of changing the binding, then we use *only* cgroups. Otherwise we use the qemu parameters that will make qemu call mbind() (as that has other pros mentioned above). The other option would be extra communication between QEMU and libvirt during start to let us know when to set what cgroups etc., but I don't think that's worth it.It seems to me mbind() or set_mempolicy() system calls do not offer that flexibility of changing afterwards. So in case of QEMU/KVM, I can only think of cgroups. So to be specific, if we had this additional "memory_binding_changeable"option specified, we will try to do the guest numa constraining viacgroups whenever possible. There will probably also be conflicts in options or things that cgroups can not do. For such cases we'd fail the domain.Basically we'll do what we're doing now and skip the qemu `host-nodes` and `policy` parameters with the new option. And of course we can fail with a niceerror message if someone wants to move the memory without the optionselected and so on.Thanks for your comments. I'd like get it more clear about defining the interface in domain xml, then I could go into the implementation further. As you mentioned, per-domain option will be better than per-node. I go through the libvirt doamin format to look for a proper position to place this option. Then I'm thinking we could still utilizing numatune element to configure. <numatune> <memory mode="strict" nodeset="1-4,^3"/> <memnode cellid="0" mode="strict" nodeset="1"/> <memnode cellid="2" mode="preferred" nodeset="2"/> </numatune>coincidentally, the optional memory element specifies how to allocatememory for the domain process on a NUMA host. So can we utilizing thiselement, and introducing a new mode like "changeable" or whatever? Doyou have a better name?Yeah, I was thinking something along the lines of: <numatune> <memory mode="strict" nodeset="1-4,^3" movable/migratable="yes/no" /> <memnode cellid="0" mode="strict" nodeset="1"/> <memnode cellid="2" mode="preferred" nodeset="2"/> </numatune>If the memory mode is set to 'changeable', we could ignore the mode setting for each memnode, and then we only configure by cgroups. I have not diven into code for now, expecting it could work.Yes, the example above gives the impression of the attribute being available per-node. But that could be handled in the documentation. Specifying it per-node seems very weird, why would you want the memory to be hard-locked, but for some guest nodes only?Thanks, LuyaoIf you agree with the direction, I think we can dig deeper to see what will come out. Regards, Zang, RuiIdeally we'd discuss it with others, but I think I am only one of a few people who dealt with issues in this regard. Maybe Michal (Cc'd) also dealt with some things related to the binding, so maybe he can chime in.[1]https://github.com/qemu/qemu/blob/f2a1cf9180f63e88bb38ff21c169dregards, LuyaoHave a nice day, MartinRegards, Luyaoa97c3f2bad5/backends/hostmem.c#L379 [2]https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/mbind.2.html -- 2.25.1
