On Sun, Sep 1, 2019 at 8:56 AM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 11:40:59AM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 10:04:29AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 01:30:26PM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> > > > Since virtio-vsock was introduced, the buffers filled by the host
> > > > and pushed to the guest using the vring, are directly queued in
> > > > a per-socket list. These buffers are preallocated by the guest
> > > > with a fixed size (4 KB).
> > > >
> > > > The maximum amount of memory used by each socket should be
> > > > controlled by the credit mechanism.
> > > > The default credit available per-socket is 256 KB, but if we use
> > > > only 1 byte per packet, the guest can queue up to 262144 of 4 KB
> > > > buffers, using up to 1 GB of memory per-socket. In addition, the
> > > > guest will continue to fill the vring with new 4 KB free buffers
> > > > to avoid starvation of other sockets.
> > > >
> > > > This patch mitigates this issue copying the payload of small
> > > > packets (< 128 bytes) into the buffer of last packet queued, in
> > > > order to avoid wasting memory.
> > > >
> > > > Reviewed-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > This is good enough for net-next, but for net I think we
> > > should figure out how to address the issue completely.
> > > Can we make the accounting precise? What happens to
> > > performance if we do?
> > >
> >
> > Since I'm back from holidays, I'm restarting this thread to figure out
> > how to address the issue completely.
> >
> > I did a better analysis of the credit mechanism that we implemented in
> > virtio-vsock to get a clearer view and I'd share it with you:
> >
> > This issue affect only the "host->guest" path. In this case, when the
> > host wants to send a packet to the guest, it uses a "free" buffer
> > allocated by the guest (4KB).
> > The "free" buffers available for the host are shared between all
> > sockets, instead, the credit mechanism is per-socket, I think to
> > avoid the starvation of others sockets.
> > The guests re-fill the "free" queue when the available buffers are
> > less than half.
> >
> > Each peer have these variables in the per-socket state:
> > /* local vars */
> > buf_alloc /* max bytes usable by this socket
> > [exposed to the other peer] */
> > fwd_cnt /* increased when RX packet is consumed by the
> > user space [exposed to the other peer] */
> > tx_cnt /* increased when TX packet is sent to the other peer */
> >
> > /* remote vars */
> > peer_buf_alloc /* peer's buf_alloc */
> > peer_fwd_cnt /* peer's fwd_cnt */
> >
> > When a peer sends a packet, it increases the 'tx_cnt'; when the
> > receiver consumes the packet (copy it to the user-space buffer), it
> > increases the 'fwd_cnt'.
> > Note: increments are made considering the payload length and not the
> > buffer length.
> >
> > The value of 'buf_alloc' and 'fwd_cnt' are sent to the other peer in
> > all packet headers or with an explicit CREDIT_UPDATE packet.
> >
> > The local 'buf_alloc' value can be modified by the user space using
> > setsockopt() with optname=SO_VM_SOCKETS_BUFFER_SIZE.
> >
> > Before to send a packet, the peer checks the space available:
> > credit_available = peer_buf_alloc - (tx_cnt - peer_fwd_cnt)
> > and it will send up to credit_available bytes to the other peer.
> >
> > Possible solutions considering Michael's advice:
> > 1. Use the buffer length instead of the payload length when we increment
> > the counters:
> > - This approach will account precisely the memory used per socket.
> > - This requires changes in both guest and host.
> > - It is not compatible with old drivers, so a feature should be negotiated.
> > 2. Decrease the advertised 'buf_alloc' taking count of bytes queued in
> > the socket queue but not used. (e.g. 256 byte used on 4K available in
> > the buffer)
> > - pkt->hdr.buf_alloc = buf_alloc - bytes_not_used.
> > - This should be compatible also with old drivers.
> >
> > Maybe the second is less invasive, but will it be too tricky?
> > Any other advice or suggestions?
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
> > Stefano
>
> OK let me try to clarify. The idea is this:
>
> Let's say we queue a buffer of 4K, and we copy if len < 128 bytes. This
> means that in the worst case (128 byte packets), each byte of credit in
> the socket uses up 4K/128 = 16 bytes of kernel memory. In fact we need
> to also account for the virtio_vsock_pkt since I think it's kept around
> until userspace consumes it.
>
> Thus given X buf alloc allowed in the socket, we should publish X/16
> credits to the other side. This will ensure the other side does not send
> more than X/16 bytes for a given socket and thus we won't need to
> allocate more than X bytes to hold the data.
>
> We can play with the copy break value to tweak this.
>
Hi Michael,
sorry for the long silence, but I focused on multi-transport.
Before to implement your idea, I tried to do some calculations and
looking better to our credit mechanism:
buf_alloc = 256 KB (default, tunable through setsockopt)
sizeof(struct virtio_vsock_pkt) = 128
- guest (we use preallocated 4 KB buffers to receive packets, copying
small packet - < 128 -)
worst_case = 129
buf_size = 4 KB
credit2mem = (buf_size + sizeof(struct virtio_vsock_pkt)) / worst_case = 32
credit_published = buf_alloc / credit2mem = ~8 KB
Space for just 2 full packet (4 KB)
- host (we copy packets from the vring, allocating the space for the payload)
worst_case = 1
buf_size = 1
credit2mem = (buf_size + sizeof(struct virtio_vsock_pkt)) / worst_case = 129
credit_published = buf_alloc / credit2mem = ~2 KB
Less than a full packet (guest now can send up to 64 KB with a single
packet, so it will be limited to 2 KB)
Current memory consumption in the worst case if the RX queue is full:
- guest
mem = (buf_alloc / worst_case) *
(buf_size + sizeof(struct virtio_vsock_pkt) = ~8MB
- host
mem = (buf_alloc / worst_case) *
(buf_size + sizeof(struct virtio_vsock_pkt) = ~32MB
I think that the performance with big packets will be affected,
but I still have to try.
Another approach that I want to explore is to play with buf_alloc
published to the peer.
One thing that's not clear to me yet is the meaning of
SO_VM_SOCKETS_BUFFER_SIZE:
- max amount of memory used in the RX queue
- max amount of payload bytes in the RX queue (without overhead of
struct virtio_vsock_pkt + preallocated buffer)
>From the 'include/uapi/linux/vm_sockets.h':
/* Option name for STREAM socket buffer size. Use as the option name in
* setsockopt(3) or getsockopt(3) to set or get an unsigned long long that
* specifies the size of the buffer underlying a vSockets STREAM socket.
* Value is clamped to the MIN and MAX.
*/
#define SO_VM_SOCKETS_BUFFER_SIZE 0
Regardless, I think we need to limit memory consumption in some way.
I'll check the implementation of other transports, to understand better.
I'll keep you updated!
Thanks,
Stefano
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
