Re: [PATCH] config: limit lcore variable maximum size to 4k

[Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>]

On Mon, 11 Nov 2024 08:22:46 +0100
Mattias Rönnblom <hofors@lysator.liu.se> wrote:

> On 2024-11-09 00:52, Morten Brørup wrote:
> >> From: Mattias Rönnblom [mailto:hofors@lysator.liu.se]
> >> Sent: Friday, 8 November 2024 23.23
> >>
> >> On 2024-11-08 20:53, Morten Brørup wrote:  
> >>>> From: Morten Brørup [mailto:mb@smartsharesystems.com]
> >>>> Sent: Friday, 8 November 2024 19.35
> >>>>  
> >>>>> From: David Marchand [mailto:david.marchand@redhat.com]
> >>>>> Sent: Friday, 8 November 2024 19.18
> >>>>>
> >>>>> OVS locks all pages to avoid page faults while processing packets.  
> >>>
> >>> It sounds smart, so I just took a look at how it does this. I'm not  
> >> sure, but it seems like it only locks pages that are actually mapped
> >> (current and future).  
> >>>  
> >>
> >> mlockall(MLOCK_CURRENT) will bring in the whole BSS, it seems. Plus all
> >> the rest like unused parts of the execution stacks, the data section
> >> and
> >> unused code (text) in the binary and all libraries it has linked to.
> >>
> >> It makes a simple (e.g., a unit test) DPDK 24.07 program use ~33x more
> >> residential memory. After lcore variables, the same MLOCK_CURRENT-ed
> >> program is ~30% larger than before. So, a relatively modest increase.  
> > 
> > Thank you for testing this, Mattias.
> > What are the absolute numbers, i.e. in KB, to get an idea of the numbers I should be looking for?
> >   
> 
> Hello world type program with static linking. Default DPDK config. x86_64.
> 
> DPDK version  MAX_LCORE_VAR   EAL params         mlock  RSS [MB]
> 22.11         -               --no-huge -m 1000  no     22
> 24.11         1048576         --no-huge -m 1000  no     22
> 24.11         1048576         --no-huge -m 1000  yes    1576
> 24.11         4096            --no-huge -m 1000  yes    1445
> 22.11         -               -                  yes    333*
> 24.11         1048576         -                  yes    542*
> 24.11         4096            -                  yes    411*
> 
> * Excluding huge pages
> 
> If you are more selective what libraries you bring in, the footprint 
> will be lower. How large a fraction is effectively unavoidable, I don't 
> know. The relative increase will depends on how much memory the 
> application uses, obviously. The hello world app doesn't have any 
> app-level state.
> 
> > I wonder why the footprint grows at all... Intuitively the same variables should consume approximately the same amount of RAM, regardless how they are allocated.
> > Speculating...  
> 
> lcore variables use malloc(), which in turn does not bring in memory 
> pages unless they are needed. Much of the lcore buffer will be unused, 
> and not resident. I covered this, including some example calculation of 
> the space savings, in an earlier thread. It may be in the programmer's 
> guide as well, I don't remember.

I suspect that glibc malloc assumes a virtual memory backed model.
It is lazy about reclaiming memory and grows in large chunks.
This is one of the reasons malloc() is faster than rte_malloc()
for allocation.

https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/MallocInternals