Re: [PATCH v1 01/17] exec: Introduce ram_block_discard_set_(unreliable|required)()

Dr. David Alan Gilbert
2020-05-15T16:15:37Z

* David Hildenbrand (david@redhat.com) wrote:
> On 06.05.20 11:49, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > We want to replace qemu_balloon_inhibit() by something more generic.
> > Especially, we want to make sure that technologies that really rely on
> > RAM block discards to work reliably to run mutual exclusive with
> > technologies that break it.
> >
> > E.g., vfio will usually pin all guest memory, turning the virtio-balloon
> > basically useless and make the VM consume more memory than reported via
> > the balloon. While the balloon is special already (=> no guarantees, same
> > behavior possible afer reboots and with huge pages), this will be
> > different, especially, with virtio-mem.
> >
> > Let's implement a way such that we can make both types of technology run
> > mutually exclusive. We'll convert existing balloon inhibitors in successive
> > patches and add some new ones. Add the check to
> > qemu_balloon_is_inhibited() for now. We might want to make
> > virtio-balloon an acutal inhibitor in the future - however, that
> > requires more thought to not break existing setups.
> >
> > Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
> > Cc: Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>
> > Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
> > Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
> > ---
> > balloon.c | 3 ++-
> > exec.c | 48 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > include/exec/memory.h | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 3 files changed, 91 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/balloon.c b/balloon.c
> > index f104b42961..c49f57c27b 100644
> > --- a/balloon.c
> > +++ b/balloon.c
> > @@ -40,7 +40,8 @@ static int balloon_inhibit_count;
> >
> > bool qemu_balloon_is_inhibited(void)
> > {
> > - return atomic_read(&balloon_inhibit_count) > 0;
> > + return atomic_read(&balloon_inhibit_count) > 0 ||
> > + ram_block_discard_is_broken();
> > }
> >
> > void qemu_balloon_inhibit(bool state)
> > diff --git a/exec.c b/exec.c
> > index 2874bb5088..52a6e40e99 100644
> > --- a/exec.c
> > +++ b/exec.c
> > @@ -4049,4 +4049,52 @@ void mtree_print_dispatch(AddressSpaceDispatch *d, MemoryRegion *root)
> > }
> > }
> >
> > +static int ram_block_discard_broken;
> > +
> > +int ram_block_discard_set_broken(bool state)
> > +{
> > + int old;
> > +
> > + if (!state) {
> > + atomic_dec(&ram_block_discard_broken);
> > + return 0;
> > + }
> > +
> > + do {
> > + old = atomic_read(&ram_block_discard_broken);
> > + if (old < 0) {
> > + return -EBUSY;
> > + }
> > + } while (atomic_cmpxchg(&ram_block_discard_broken, old, old + 1) != old);
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +int ram_block_discard_set_required(bool state)
> > +{
> > + int old;
> > +
> > + if (!state) {
> > + atomic_inc(&ram_block_discard_broken);
> > + return 0;
> > + }
> > +
> > + do {
> > + old = atomic_read(&ram_block_discard_broken);
> > + if (old > 0) {
> > + return -EBUSY;
> > + }
> > + } while (atomic_cmpxchg(&ram_block_discard_broken, old, old - 1) != old);
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +bool ram_block_discard_is_broken(void)
> > +{
> > + return atomic_read(&ram_block_discard_broken) > 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +bool ram_block_discard_is_required(void)
> > +{
> > + return atomic_read(&ram_block_discard_broken) < 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > #endif
> > diff --git a/include/exec/memory.h b/include/exec/memory.h
> > index e000bd2f97..9bb5ced38d 100644
> > --- a/include/exec/memory.h
> > +++ b/include/exec/memory.h
> > @@ -2463,6 +2463,47 @@ static inline MemOp devend_memop(enum device_endian end)
> > }
> > #endif
> >
> > +/*
> > + * Inhibit technologies that rely on discarding of parts of RAM blocks to work
> > + * reliably, e.g., to manage the actual amount of memory consumed by the VM
> > + * (then, the memory provided by RAM blocks might be bigger than the desired
> > + * memory consumption). This *must* be set if:
> > + * - Discarding parts of a RAM blocks does not result in the change being
> > + * reflected in the VM and the pages getting freed.
> > + * - All memory in RAM blocks is pinned or duplicated, invaldiating any previous
> > + * discards blindly.
> > + * - Discarding parts of a RAM blocks will result in integrity issues (e.g.,
> > + * encrypted VMs).
> > + * Technologies that only temporarily pin the current working set of a
> > + * driver are fine, because we don't expect such pages to be discarded
> > + * (esp. based on guest action like balloon inflation).
> > + *
> > + * This is *not* to be used to protect from concurrent discards (esp.,
> > + * postcopy).
> > + *
> > + * Returns 0 if successful. Returns -EBUSY if a technology that relies on
> > + * discards to work reliably is active.
> > + */
> > +int ram_block_discard_set_broken(bool state);
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * Inhibit technologies that will break discarding of pages in RAM blocks.
> > + *
> > + * Returns 0 if successful. Returns -EBUSY if discards are already set to
> > + * broken.
> > + */
> > +int ram_block_discard_set_required(bool state);
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * Test if discarding of memory in ram blocks is broken.
> > + */
> > +bool ram_block_discard_is_broken(void);
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * Test if discarding of memory in ram blocks is required to work reliably.
> > + */
> > +bool ram_block_discard_is_required(void);
> > +
> > #endif
> >
> > #endif
> >
>
> I'm wondering if I'll just call these functions
>
> ram_block_discard_disable()
>
> and
>
> ram_block_discard_require()

Yeh I prefer that.

Dave

> --
> Thanks,
>
> David / dhildenb
--
Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilbert@redhat.com / Manchester, UK