Re: [PATCH V3 01/16] machine: anon-alloc option

[Steven Sistare <steven.sistare@oracle.com>]

On 11/7/2024 8:05 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 06.11.24 21:59, Steven Sistare wrote:
>> On 11/6/2024 3:41 PM, Peter Xu wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 06, 2024 at 03:12:20PM -0500, Steven Sistare wrote:
>>>> On 11/4/2024 4:36 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>>> On 04.11.24 21:56, Steven Sistare wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/4/2024 3:15 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>>>>> On 04.11.24 20:51, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 04.11.24 18:38, Steven Sistare wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/4/2024 5:39 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 01.11.24 14:47, Steve Sistare wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Allocate anonymous memory using mmap MAP_ANON or memfd_create depending
>>>>>>>>>>> on the value of the anon-alloc machine property.  This option applies to
>>>>>>>>>>> memory allocated as a side effect of creating various devices. It does
>>>>>>>>>>> not apply to memory-backend-objects, whether explicitly specified on
>>>>>>>>>>> the command line, or implicitly created by the -m command line option.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The memfd option is intended to support new migration modes, in which the
>>>>>>>>>>> memory region can be transferred in place to a new QEMU process, by sending
>>>>>>>>>>> the memfd file descriptor to the process.  Memory contents are preserved,
>>>>>>>>>>> and if the mode also transfers device descriptors, then pages that are
>>>>>>>>>>> locked in memory for DMA remain locked.  This behavior is a pre-requisite
>>>>>>>>>>> for supporting vfio, vdpa, and iommufd devices with the new modes.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A more portable, non-Linux specific variant of this will be using shm,
>>>>>>>>>> similar to backends/hostmem-shm.c.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Likely we should be using that instead of memfd, or try hiding the
>>>>>>>>>> details. See below.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For this series I would prefer to use memfd and hide the details.  It's a
>>>>>>>>> concise (and well tested) solution albeit linux only.  The code you supply
>>>>>>>>> for posix shm would be a good follow on patch to support other unices.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Unless there is reason to use memfd we should start with the more
>>>>>>>> generic POSIX variant that is available even on systems without memfd.
>>>>>>>> Factoring stuff out as I drafted does look quite compelling.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I can help with the rework, and send it out separately, so you can focus
>>>>>>>> on the "machine toggle" as part of this series.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of course, if we find out we need the memfd internally instead under
>>>>>>>> Linux for whatever reason later, we can use that instead.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But IIUC, the main selling point for memfd are additional features
>>>>>>>> (hugetlb, memory sealing) that you aren't even using.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> FWIW, I'm looking into some details, and one difference is that shmem_open() under Linux (glibc) seems to go to /dev/shmem and memfd/SYSV go to the internal tmpfs mount. There is not a big difference, but there can be some difference (e.g., sizing of the /dev/shm mount).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sizing is a non-trivial difference.  One can by default allocate all memory using memfd_create.
>>>>>> To do so using shm_open requires configuration on the mount.  One step harder to use.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is a real issue for memory-backend-ram, and becomes an issue for the internal RAM
>>>>>> if memory-backend-ram has hogged all the memory.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regarding memory-backend-ram,share=on, I assume we can use memfd if available, but then fallback to shm_open().
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, and if that is a good idea, then the same should be done for internal RAM
>>>>>> -- memfd if available and fallback to shm_open.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm hoping we can find a way where it just all is rather intuitive, like
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "default-ram-share=on": behave for internal RAM just like "memory-backend-ram,share=on"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "memory-backend-ram,share=on": use whatever mechanism we have to give us "anonymous" memory that can be shared using an fd with another process.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Agreed, though I thought I had already landed at the intuitive specification in my patch.
>>>>>> The user must explicitly configure memory-backend-* to be usable with CPR, and anon-alloc
>>>>>> controls everything else.  Now we're just riffing on the details: memfd vs shm_open, spelling
>>>>>> of options and words to describe them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, yes, and making it all a bit more consistent and the "machine option" behave just like "memory-backend-ram,share=on".
>>>>
>>>> Hi David and Peter,
>>>>
>>>> I have implemented and tested the following, for both qemu_memfd_create
>>>> and qemu_shm_alloc.  This is pseudo-code, with error conditions omitted
>>>> for simplicity.
>>>
>>> I'm ok with either shm or memfd, as this feature only applies to Linux
>>> anyway.  I'll leave that part to you and David to decide.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Any comments before I submit a complete patch?
>>>>
>>>> ----
>>>> qemu-options.hx:
>>>>       ``aux-ram-share=on|off``
>>>>           Allocate auxiliary guest RAM as an anonymous file that is
>>>>           shareable with an external process.  This option applies to
>>>>           memory allocated as a side effect of creating various devices.
>>>>           It does not apply to memory-backend-objects, whether explicitly
>>>>           specified on the command line, or implicitly created by the -m
>>>>           command line option.
>>>>
>>>>           Some migration modes require aux-ram-share=on.
>>>>
>>>> qapi/migration.json:
>>>>       @cpr-transfer:
>>>>            ...
>>>>            Memory-backend objects must have the share=on attribute, but
>>>>            memory-backend-epc is not supported.  The VM must be started
>>>>            with the '-machine aux-ram-share=on' option.
>>>>
>>>> Define RAM_PRIVATE
>>>>
>>>> Define qemu_shm_alloc(), from David's tmp patch
>>>>
>>>> ram_backend_memory_alloc()
>>>>       ram_flags = backend->share ? RAM_SHARED : RAM_PRIVATE;
>>>>       memory_region_init_ram_flags_nomigrate(ram_flags)
>>>
>>> Looks all good until here.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> qemu_ram_alloc_internal()
>>>>       ...
>>>>       if (!host && !(ram_flags & RAM_PRIVATE) && current_machine->aux_ram_share)
>>>
>>> Nitpick: could rely on flags-only, rather than testing "!host", AFAICT
>>> that's equal to RAM_PREALLOC.
>>
>> IMO testing host is clearer and more future proof, regardless of how flags
>> are currently used.  If the caller passes host, then we should not allocate
>> memory here, full stop.
>>
>>> Meanwhile I slightly prefer we don't touch
>>> anything if SHARED|PRIVATE is set.
>>
>> OK, if SHARED is already set I will not set it again.
> 
> We only have to make sure that stuff like qemu_ram_is_shared() will continue working as expected.
> 
> What I think we should do:
> 
> We should probably assert that nobody passes in SHARED|PRIVATE. And we can use PRIVATE only as a parameter to the function, but never actually set it on the ramblock.
> 
> If someone passes in PRIVATE, we don't include it in block->flags. (RMA_SHARED remains cleared)
> 
> If someone passes in SHARED, we do set it in block->flags.
> If someone passes PRIVATE|SHARED, we assert.
> 
> If someone passes in nothing: we set block->flags to SHARED with aux_ram_share=on. Otherwise, we do nothing (RAM_SHARED remains cleared)
> 
> If that's also what you had in mind, great.

Yes, my patch does that, but it also sets RAM_PRIVATE on the ramblock.
I will undo the latter.

Do you plan to submit the part of your "tmp" patch that refactors
shm_backend_memory_alloc and defines qemu_shm_alloc?  If you want,
I could include it in my series, with your Signed-off-by.

Do you have any comments on my proposed name aux-ram-share, or my proposed text
for qemu-options.hx and migration.json?  Speaking now would prevent more version
churn later.

- Steve