From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 141F8C6FD1F for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 17:12:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rmczv-0000qb-TE; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 13:11:35 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rmczm-0000pt-BW for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 13:11:26 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.133.124]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rmczW-0005h9-5l for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 13:11:26 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1710868268; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=z8+W5Bmsq9efqKtkSW5sMB8RuaP5rXbcpiN6k+G5xZQ=; b=bqLt2Nqz12KA2I6MBl7omfIdFizBFIZakvMiRX3QRbJV48CDQimncdBBzM6cAjwlbX5WK6 G9WLw7JjFqMVA0GKQ+VfJrgqxlUQjSNgN3YfXkzyYEVXczVqeeF+4OZNHe1J+/CheVMqIa VArOnmJGXyQZv240OK842uaCvVvgotc= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-76-5BOvJtXONUGajZsD801YVw-1; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 13:11:06 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 5BOvJtXONUGajZsD801YVw-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.9]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA2E680026B for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 17:11:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from redhat.com (unknown [10.42.28.88]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B9368492BC8; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 17:11:04 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 17:10:58 +0000 From: Daniel =?utf-8?B?UC4gQmVycmFuZ8Op?= To: Kevin Wolf Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Sanjay Rao , Boaz Ben Shabat , Joe Mario Subject: Re: [PATCH] coroutine: cap per-thread local pool size Message-ID: References: <20240318183429.1039340-1-stefanha@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/2.2.12 (2023-09-09) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.11.54.9 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=170.10.133.124; envelope-from=berrange@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -24 X-Spam_score: -2.5 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.5 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.422, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Daniel =?utf-8?B?UC4gQmVycmFuZ8Op?= Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 05:54:38PM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote: > Am 19.03.2024 um 14:43 hat Daniel P. Berrangé geschrieben: > > On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 02:34:29PM -0400, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > > > The coroutine pool implementation can hit the Linux vm.max_map_count > > > limit, causing QEMU to abort with "failed to allocate memory for stack" > > > or "failed to set up stack guard page" during coroutine creation. > > > > > > This happens because per-thread pools can grow to tens of thousands of > > > coroutines. Each coroutine causes 2 virtual memory areas to be created. > > > > This sounds quite alarming. What usage scenario is justified in > > creating so many coroutines? > > Basically we try to allow pooling coroutines for as many requests as > there can be in flight at the same time. That is, adding a virtio-blk > device increases the maximum pool size by num_queues * queue_size. If > you have a guest with many CPUs, the default num_queues is relatively > large (the bug referenced by Stefan had 64), and queue_size is 256 by > default. That's 16k potential requests in flight per disk. If we have more than 1 virtio-blk device, does that scale up the max coroutines too ? eg would 32 virtio-blks devices imply 16k * 32 -> 512k potential requests/coroutines ? > > IIUC, coroutine stack size is 1 MB, and so tens of thousands of > > coroutines implies 10's of GB of memory just on stacks alone. > > That's only virtual memory, though. Not sure how much of it is actually > used in practice. True, by default Linux wouldn't care too much about virtual memory, Only if 'vm.overcommit_memory' is changed from its default, such that Linux applies an overcommit ratio on RAM, then total virtual memory would be relevant. > > > Eventually vm.max_map_count is reached and memory-related syscalls fail. > > > > On my system max_map_count is 1048576, quite alot higher than > > 10's of 1000's. Hitting that would imply ~500,000 coroutines and > > ~500 GB of stacks ! > > Did you change the configuration some time in the past, or is this just > a newer default? I get 65530, and that's the same default number I've > seen in the bug reports. It turns out it is a Fedora change, rather than a kernel change: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/IncreaseVmMaxMapCount > > > diff --git a/util/qemu-coroutine.c b/util/qemu-coroutine.c > > > index 5fd2dbaf8b..2790959eaf 100644 > > > --- a/util/qemu-coroutine.c > > > +++ b/util/qemu-coroutine.c > > > > > +static unsigned int get_global_pool_hard_max_size(void) > > > +{ > > > +#ifdef __linux__ > > > + g_autofree char *contents = NULL; > > > + int max_map_count; > > > + > > > + /* > > > + * Linux processes can have up to max_map_count virtual memory areas > > > + * (VMAs). mmap(2), mprotect(2), etc fail with ENOMEM beyond this limit. We > > > + * must limit the coroutine pool to a safe size to avoid running out of > > > + * VMAs. > > > + */ > > > + if (g_file_get_contents("/proc/sys/vm/max_map_count", &contents, NULL, > > > + NULL) && > > > + qemu_strtoi(contents, NULL, 10, &max_map_count) == 0) { > > > + /* > > > + * This is a conservative upper bound that avoids exceeding > > > + * max_map_count. Leave half for non-coroutine users like library > > > + * dependencies, vhost-user, etc. Each coroutine takes up 2 VMAs so > > > + * halve the amount again. > > > + */ > > > + return max_map_count / 4; > > > > That's 256,000 coroutines, which still sounds incredibly large > > to me. > > The whole purpose of the limitation is that you won't ever get -ENOMEM > back, which will likely crash your VM. Even if this hard limit is high, > that doesn't mean that it's fully used. Your setting of 1048576 probably > means that you would never have hit the crash anyway. > > Even the benchmarks that used to hit the problem don't even get close to > this hard limit any more because the actual number of coroutines stays > much smaller after applying this patch. I'm more thinking about what's the worst case behaviour that a malicious guest can inflict on QEMU, and cause unexpectedly high memory usage in the host. ENOMEM is bad for a friendy VM, but there's also the risk to the host from a unfriendly VM exploiting the high limits > > > > + } > > > +#endif > > > + > > > + return UINT_MAX; > > > > Why UINT_MAX as a default ? If we can't read procfs, we should > > assume some much smaller sane default IMHO, that corresponds to > > what current linux default max_map_count would be. > > I don't think we should artificially limit the pool size and with this > potentially limit the performance with it even if the host could do more > if we only allowed it to. If we can't read it from procfs, then it's > your responsibility as a user to make sure that it's large enough for > your VM configuration. With regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|