Re: [kvm-devel] performance with guests running 2.4 kernels (specifically RHEL3)

David S. Ahern
2008-05-28T17:24:08Z

Yes, I've tried changing kscand_work_percent (values of 50 and 30).
Basically it makes kscand wake more often (ie.,MIN_AGING_INTERVAL
declines in proportion) put do less work each trip through the lists.

I have not seen a noticeable change in guest behavior.

david

Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 09:43:09AM -0600, David S. Ahern wrote:
>> This is the code in the RHEL3.8 kernel:
>>
>> static int scan_active_list(struct zone_struct * zone, int age,
>> struct list_head * list, int count)
>> {
>> struct list_head *page_lru , *next;
>> struct page * page;
>> int over_rsslimit;
>>
>> count = count * kscand_work_percent / 100;
>> /* Take the lock while messing with the list... */
>> lru_lock(zone);
>> while (count-- > 0 && !list_empty(list)) {
>> page = list_entry(list->prev, struct page, lru);
>> pte_chain_lock(page);
>> if (page_referenced(page, &over_rsslimit)
>> && !over_rsslimit
>> && check_mapping_inuse(page))
>> age_page_up_nolock(page, age);
>> else {
>> list_del(&page->lru);
>> list_add(&page->lru, list);
>> }
>> pte_chain_unlock(page);
>> }
>> lru_unlock(zone);
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> My previous email shows examples of the number of pages in the list and
>> the scanning that happens.
>
> This code looks better than the one below, as a limit was introduced
> and the whole list isn't scanned anymore, if you decrease
> kscand_work_percent (I assume it's a sysctl even if it's missing the
> sysctl_ prefix) to say 1, you can limit damages. Did you try it?
>
>> Avi Kivity wrote:
>>> Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>>>> So I never found a relation to the symptom reported of VM kernel
>>>> threads going weird, with KVM optimal handling of kmap ptes.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The problem is this code:
>>>
>>> static int scan_active_list(struct zone_struct * zone, int age,
>>> struct list_head * list)
>>> {
>>> struct list_head *page_lru , *next;
>>> struct page * page;
>>> int over_rsslimit;
>>>
>>> /* Take the lock while messing with the list... */
>>> lru_lock(zone);
>>> list_for_each_safe(page_lru, next, list) {
>>> page = list_entry(page_lru, struct page, lru);
>>> pte_chain_lock(page);
>>> if (page_referenced(page, &over_rsslimit) && !over_rsslimit)
>>> age_page_up_nolock(page, age);
>>> pte_chain_unlock(page);
>>> }
>>> lru_unlock(zone);
>>> return 0;
>>> }
>>> If the pages in the list are in the same order as in the ptes (which is
>>> very likely), then we have the following access pattern
>
> Yes it is likely.
>
>>> - set up kmap to point at pte
>>> - test_and_clear_bit(pte)
>>> - kunmap
>>>
>>> From kvm's point of view this looks like
>>>
>>> - several accesses to set up the kmap
>
> Hmm, the kmap establishment takes a single guest operation in the
> fixmap area. That's a single write to the pte, to write a pte_t 8/4
> byte large region (PAE/non-PAE). The same pte_t is then cleared and
> flushed out of the tlb with a cpu-local invlpg during kunmap_atomic.
>
> I count 1 write here so far.
>
>>> - if these accesses trigger flooding, we will have to tear down the
>>> shadow for this page, only to set it up again soon
>
> So the shadow mapping the fixmap area would be tear down by the
> flooding.
>
> Or is the shadow corresponding to the real user pte pointed by the
> fixmap, that is unshadowed by the flooding, or both/all?
>
>>> - an access to the pte (emulted)
>
> Here I count the second write and this isn't done on the fixmap area
> like the first write above, but this is a write to the real user pte,
> pointed by the fixmap. So if this is emulated it means the shadow of
> the user pte pointing to the real data page is still active.
>
>>> - if this access _doesn't_ trigger flooding, we will have 512 unneeded
>>> emulations. The pte is worthless anyway since the accessed bit is clear
>>> (so we can't set up a shadow pte for it)
>>> - this bug was fixed
>
> You mean the accessed bit on fixmap pte used by kmap? Or the user pte
> pointed by the fixmap pte?
>
>>> - an access to tear down the kmap
>
> Yep, pte_clear on the fixmap pte_t followed by an invlpg (if that
> matters).
>
>>> [btw, am I reading this right? the entire list is scanned each time?
>
> If the list parameter isn't a local LIST_HEAD on the stack but the
> global one it's a full scan each time. I guess it's the global list
> looking at the new code at the top that has a kswapd_scan_limit
> sysctl.
>
>>> if you have 1G of active HIGHMEM, that's a quarter of a million pages,
>>> which would take at least a second no matter what we do. VMware can
>>> probably special-case kmaps, but we can't]
>
> Perhaps they've a list per-age bucket or similar but still I doubt
> this works well on host either... I guess the virtualization overhead
> is exacerbating the inefficiency. Perhaps killall -STOP kscand is good
> enough fix ;). This seem to only push the age up, to be functional the
> age has to go down and I guess the go-down is done by other threads so
> stopping kscand may not hurt.
>
> I think what we should aim for is to quickly reach this condition:
>
> 1) always keep the fixmap/kmap pte_t shadowed and emulate the
> kmap/kunmap access so the test_and_clear_young done on the user pte
> doesn't require to re-establish the spte representing the fixmap
> virtual address. If we don't emulate fixmap we'll have to
> re-establish the spte during the write to the user pte, and
> tear it down again during kunmap_atomic. So there's not much doubt
> fixmap access emulation is worth it.
>
> 2) get rid of the user pte shadow mapping pointing to the user data so
> the test_and_clear of the young bitflag on the user pte will not be
> emulated and it'll run at full CPU speed through the shadow pte
> mapping corresponding to the fixmap virtual address
>
> kscand pattern is the same as running mprotect on a 32bit 2.6
> kernel so it sounds worth optimizing for it, even if kscand may be
> unfixable without killall -STOP kscand or VM fixes to guest.
>
> However I'm not sure about point 2 at the light of mprotect. With
> mprotect the guest virutal addresses mapped by the guest user ptes
> will be used. It's not like kscand that may write forever to the user
> ptes without ever using the guest virtual addresses that they're
> mapping. So we better be sure that by unshadowing and optimizing
> kscand we're not hurting mprotect or other pte mangling operations in
> 2.6 that will likely keep accessing the guest virtual addresses mapped
> by the user ptes previously modified.
>
> Hope this makes any sense, I'm not sure to understand this completely.
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>