Re: [PATCH] KVM: PPC: BOOK3S: HV: Don't try to allocate from kernel page allocator for hash page table.

[Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>]

On 06.05.14 09:19, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-05-06 at 09:05 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> On 06.05.14 02:06, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2014-05-05 at 17:16 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>> Isn't this a greater problem? We should start swapping before we hit
>>>> the point where non movable kernel allocation fails, no?
>>> Possibly but the fact remains, this can be avoided by making sure that
>>> if we create a CMA reserve for KVM, then it uses it rather than using
>>> the rest of main memory for hash tables.
>> So why were we preferring non-CMA memory before? Considering that Aneesh
>> introduced that logic in fa61a4e3 I suppose this was just a mistake?
> I assume so.
>
>>>> The fact that KVM uses a good number of normal kernel pages is maybe
>>>> suboptimal, but shouldn't be a critical problem.
>>> The point is that we explicitly reserve those pages in CMA for use
>>> by KVM for that specific purpose, but the current code tries first
>>> to get them out of the normal pool.
>>>
>>> This is not an optimal behaviour and is what Aneesh patches are
>>> trying to fix.
>> I agree, and I agree that it's worth it to make better use of our
>> resources. But we still shouldn't crash.
> Well, Linux hitting out of memory conditions has never been a happy
> story :-)
>
>> However, reading through this thread I think I've slowly grasped what
>> the problem is. The hugetlbfs size calculation.
> Not really.
>
>> I guess something in your stack overreserves huge pages because it
>> doesn't account for the fact that some part of system memory is already
>> reserved for CMA.
> Either that or simply Linux runs out because we dirty too fast...
> really, Linux has never been good at dealing with OO situations,
> especially when things like network drivers and filesystems try to do
> ATOMIC or NOIO allocs...
>   
>> So the underlying problem is something completely orthogonal. The patch
>> body as is is fine, but the patch description should simply say that we
>> should prefer the CMA region because it's already reserved for us for
>> this purpose and we make better use of our available resources that way.
> No.
>
> We give a chunk of memory to hugetlbfs, it's all good and fine.
>
> Whatever remains is split between CMA and the normal page allocator.
>
> Without Aneesh latest patch, when creating guests, KVM starts allocating
> it's hash tables from the latter instead of CMA (we never allocate from
> hugetlb pool afaik, only guest pages do that, not hash tables).
>
> So we exhaust the page allocator and get linux into OOM conditions
> while there's plenty of space in CMA. But the kernel cannot use CMA for
> it's own allocations, only to back user pages, which we don't care about
> because our guest pages are covered by our hugetlb reserve :-)

Yes. Write that in the patch description and I'm happy ;).


Alex