On Wed, Dec 01, 2021 at 12:10:38PM +0800, Peter Xu wrote: > On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 03:22:29PM -0800, David Matlack wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 6:13 AM Peter Xu <peterx@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Hi, David, > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 11:57:44PM +0000, David Matlack wrote: > > > > This series is a first pass at implementing Eager Page Splitting for the > > > > TDP MMU. For context on the motivation and design of Eager Page > > > > Splitting, please see the RFC design proposal and discussion [1]. > > > > > > > > Paolo, I went ahead and added splitting in both the intially-all-set > > > > case (only splitting the region passed to CLEAR_DIRTY_LOG) and the > > > > case where we are not using initially-all-set (splitting the entire > > > > memslot when dirty logging is enabled) to give you an idea of what > > > > both look like. > > > > > > > > Note: I will be on vacation all of next week so I will not be able to > > > > respond to reviews until Monday November 29. I thought it would be > > > > useful to seed discussion and reviews with an early version of the code > > > > rather than putting it off another week. But feel free to also ignore > > > > this until I get back :) > > > > > > > > This series compiles and passes the most basic splitting test: > > > > > > > > $ ./dirty_log_perf_test -s anonymous_hugetlb_2mb -v 2 -i 4 > > > > > > > > But please operate under the assumption that this code is probably > > > > buggy. > > > > > > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/CALzav=dV_U4r1K9oDq4esb4mpBQDQ2ROQ5zH5wV3KpOaZrRW-A@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/#t > > > > > > Will there be more numbers to show in the formal patchset? > > > > Yes definitely. I didn't have a lot of time to test this series, hence > > the RFC status. I'll include more thorough testing and performance > > evaluation in the cover letter for v1. > > > > > > > It's interesting to > > > know how "First Pass Dirty Memory Time" will change comparing to the rfc > > > numbers; I can have a feel of it, but still. :) Also, not only how it speedup > > > guest dirty apps, but also some general measurement on how it slows down > > > KVM_SET_USER_MEMORY_REGION (!init-all-set) or CLEAR_LOG (init-all-set) would be > > > even nicer (for CLEAR, I guess the 1st/2nd+ round will have different overhead). > > > > > > Besides that, I'm also wondering whether we should still have a knob for it, as > > > I'm wondering what if the use case is the kind where eager split huge page may > > > not help at all. What I'm thinking: > > > > > > - Read-mostly guest overload; split huge page will speed up rare writes, but > > > at the meantime drag readers down due to huge->small page mappings. > > > > > > - Writes-over-very-limited-region workload: say we have 1T guest and the app > > > in the guest only writes 10G part of it. Hmm not sure whether it exists.. > > > > > > - Postcopy targeted: it means precopy may only run a few iterations just to > > > send the static pages, so the migration duration will be relatively short, > > > and the write just didn't spread a lot to the whole guest mem. > > > > > > I don't really think any of the example is strong enough as they're all very > > > corner cased, but just to show what I meant to raise this question on whether > > > unconditionally eager split is the best approach. > > > > I'd be happy to add a knob if there's a userspace that wants to use > > it. I think the main challenge though is knowing when it is safe to > > disable eager splitting. > > Isn't it a performance feature? Why it'll be not safe? > > > For a small deployment where you know the VM workload, it might make > > sense. But for a public cloud provider the only feasible way would be to > > dynamically monitor the guest writing patterns. But then we're back at square > > one because that would require dirty logging. And even then, there's no > > guaranteed way to predict future guest write patterns based on past patterns. > > Agreed, what I was thinking was not for public cloud usages, but for the cases > where we can do specific tunings on some specific scenarios. It normally won't > matter a lot with small or medium sized VMs but extreme use cases. PS: I think even with a tunable, one static per-module parameter should be far enough for what I can imagine for now. > > > > > The way forward here might be to do a hybrid of 2M and 4K dirty > > tracking (and maybe even 1G). For example, first start dirty logging > > at 2M granularity, and then log at 4K for any specific regions or > > memslots that aren't making progress. We'd still use Eager Page > > Splitting unconditionally though, first to split to 2M and then to > > split to 4K. > > Do you mean we'd also offer different granule dirty bitmap to the userspace > too? > > I remembered you mentioned 2mb dirty tracking in your rfc series, but I didn't > expect it can be dynamically switched during tracking. That sounds a very > intersting idea. > > Thanks, > > -- > Peter Xu -- Peter Xu
