From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E414510E0 for ; Fri, 5 Aug 2022 14:22:52 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1659709371; h=from:from: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=nKJNisKgyypX3Bk0DMUA5psdWAWJAJ4t4udQLs3H4mQ=; b=RjUIpvwBYqCLo19l9enAqz184GxPA+QU7hGbrSB5w17ro2UR9+lyVdlXlXUesE7/29Zu2m +g8Do1L13fOKwtvZJAvu8VTRMSHpzQ8DFpKByXEB+TxtedV0lci/mMUltuhD+coThBoElo i5aLHh3+XO7ld6Mv/Wstg1nX+LGw+Zs= Received: from mail-wr1-f69.google.com (mail-wr1-f69.google.com [209.85.221.69]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-423-msZn0kUWPGKBc9Qtg3K_xw-1; Fri, 05 Aug 2022 10:22:48 -0400 X-MC-Unique: msZn0kUWPGKBc9Qtg3K_xw-1 Received: by mail-wr1-f69.google.com with SMTP id c20-20020adfa314000000b0021f1757ea8aso537564wrb.2 for ; Fri, 05 Aug 2022 07:22:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:organization:from:references :cc:to:content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date :message-id:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc; bh=nKJNisKgyypX3Bk0DMUA5psdWAWJAJ4t4udQLs3H4mQ=; b=pBuYwP1JlGMPQPKsRml3v5tr4P1z+R44FUUqJJmUIYHLetfBYeRLz1wdi6WH0An2pj MSVDFcholsr5O31ktO+GznSwUKNYkR6cSkNqwkOR8kJ7kZrTKTxKB2v2vIez2cZJucuD F08CoMK+dfA1U8kxmB7xsc31u5bgDGZq4zuLsRiPGXkW4ZUHlDa86LPoRF7eCPg+K+lW a9M5HyGkoSPjU8P8q8MscV8YNn7m59VoBcpMCGIBxPVbflSOBUd1X1s6NZhVpIM3JaQ8 d2nej5fTiPWvJsLARFbboeXcyeGAU9xOt4K8Ts0YeDf3UDyydx2TCma9O6Qj/bIgEnXP 5qMA== X-Gm-Message-State: ACgBeo1Gtgn+OhoBigYbrCEZN1Ag5f+IT6NhDivUTgVK+G9R3LSjW2Ii DFwgy51cMP4tzQpFGw0qnIyQa0Tb8z84YPWcMoX6WYrxzfIMFnCxV+JwNwTSFlsfsbEYZoX7FO6 YTqKH5EYcaNc5TSJ/UlbCFA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:1684:b0:220:6e60:768d with SMTP id y4-20020a056000168400b002206e60768dmr4252349wrd.121.1659709367579; Fri, 05 Aug 2022 07:22:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA6agR6CYXT+ni9gsbRr8mZUNjpQ2tsstwjGkxFUtVPtwZkG8v0kEXmlA6Rh4FAkaG7a+zr3bUpxBw== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:1684:b0:220:6e60:768d with SMTP id y4-20020a056000168400b002206e60768dmr4252330wrd.121.1659709367252; Fri, 05 Aug 2022 07:22:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPV6:2003:cb:c706:fb00:f5c3:24b2:3d03:9d52? (p200300cbc706fb00f5c324b23d039d52.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [2003:cb:c706:fb00:f5c3:24b2:3d03:9d52]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j37-20020a05600c1c2500b003a2c67aa6c0sm5760334wms.23.2022.08.05.07.22.45 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 05 Aug 2022 07:22:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2022 16:22:45 +0200 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-coco@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.11.0 Subject: Re: [PATCHv7 02/14] mm: Add support for unaccepted memory To: Vlastimil Babka , "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Borislav Petkov , Andy Lutomirski , Sean Christopherson , Andrew Morton , Joerg Roedel , Ard Biesheuvel Cc: Andi Kleen , Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan , David Rientjes , Tom Lendacky , Thomas Gleixner , Peter Zijlstra , Paolo Bonzini , Ingo Molnar , Dario Faggioli , Dave Hansen , Mike Rapoport , marcelo.cerri@canonical.com, tim.gardner@canonical.com, khalid.elmously@canonical.com, philip.cox@canonical.com, x86@kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-coco@lists.linux.dev, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Mike Rapoport , Mel Gorman References: <20220614120231.48165-1-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> <20220614120231.48165-3-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> <8cf143e7-2b62-1a1e-de84-e3dcc6c027a4@suse.cz> From: David Hildenbrand Organization: Red Hat In-Reply-To: X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 05.08.22 15:38, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > On 8/5/22 14:09, David Hildenbrand wrote: >> On 05.08.22 13:49, Vlastimil Babka wrote: >>> On 6/14/22 14:02, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: >>>> UEFI Specification version 2.9 introduces the concept of memory >>>> acceptance. Some Virtual Machine platforms, such as Intel TDX or AMD >>>> SEV-SNP, require memory to be accepted before it can be used by the >>>> guest. Accepting happens via a protocol specific to the Virtual Machine >>>> platform. >>>> >>>> There are several ways kernel can deal with unaccepted memory: >>>> >>>> 1. Accept all the memory during the boot. It is easy to implement and >>>> it doesn't have runtime cost once the system is booted. The downside >>>> is very long boot time. >>>> >>>> Accept can be parallelized to multiple CPUs to keep it manageable >>>> (i.e. via DEFERRED_STRUCT_PAGE_INIT), but it tends to saturate >>>> memory bandwidth and does not scale beyond the point. >>>> >>>> 2. Accept a block of memory on the first use. It requires more >>>> infrastructure and changes in page allocator to make it work, but >>>> it provides good boot time. >>>> >>>> On-demand memory accept means latency spikes every time kernel steps >>>> onto a new memory block. The spikes will go away once workload data >>>> set size gets stabilized or all memory gets accepted. >>>> >>>> 3. Accept all memory in background. Introduce a thread (or multiple) >>>> that gets memory accepted proactively. It will minimize time the >>>> system experience latency spikes on memory allocation while keeping >>>> low boot time. >>>> >>>> This approach cannot function on its own. It is an extension of #2: >>>> background memory acceptance requires functional scheduler, but the >>>> page allocator may need to tap into unaccepted memory before that. >>>> >>>> The downside of the approach is that these threads also steal CPU >>>> cycles and memory bandwidth from the user's workload and may hurt >>>> user experience. >>>> >>>> Implement #2 for now. It is a reasonable default. Some workloads may >>>> want to use #1 or #3 and they can be implemented later based on user's >>>> demands. >>>> >>>> Support of unaccepted memory requires a few changes in core-mm code: >>>> >>>> - memblock has to accept memory on allocation; >>>> >>>> - page allocator has to accept memory on the first allocation of the >>>> page; >>>> >>>> Memblock change is trivial. >>>> >>>> The page allocator is modified to accept pages on the first allocation. >>>> The new page type (encoded in the _mapcount) -- PageUnaccepted() -- is >>>> used to indicate that the page requires acceptance. >>>> >>>> Architecture has to provide two helpers if it wants to support >>>> unaccepted memory: >>>> >>>> - accept_memory() makes a range of physical addresses accepted. >>>> >>>> - range_contains_unaccepted_memory() checks anything within the range >>>> of physical addresses requires acceptance. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Kirill A. Shutemov >>>> Acked-by: Mike Rapoport # memblock >>>> Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand >>> >>> Hmm I realize it's not ideal to raise this at v7, and maybe it was discussed >>> before, but it's really not great how this affects the core page allocator >>> paths. Wouldn't it be possible to only release pages to page allocator when >>> accepted, and otherwise use some new per-zone variables together with the >>> bitmap to track how much exactly is where to accept? Then it could be hooked >>> in get_page_from_freelist() similarly to CONFIG_DEFERRED_STRUCT_PAGE_INIT - >>> if we fail zone_watermark_fast() and there are unaccepted pages in the zone, >>> accept them and continue. With a static key to flip in case we eventually >>> accept everything. Because this is really similar scenario to the deferred >>> init and that one was solved in a way that adds minimal overhead. >> >> I kind of like just having the memory stats being correct (e.g., free >> memory) and acceptance being an internal detail to be triggered when >> allocating pages -- just like the arch_alloc_page() callback. > > Hm, good point about the stats. Could be tweaked perhaps so it appears > correct on the outside, but might be tricky. > >> I'm sure we could optimize for the !unaccepted memory via static keys >> also in this version with some checks at the right places if we find >> this to hurt performance? > > It would be great if we would at least somehow hit the necessary code only > when dealing with a >=pageblock size block. The bitmap approach and > accepting everything smaller uprofront actually seems rather compatible. Yet > in the current patch we e.g. check PageUnaccepted(buddy) on every buddy size > while merging. > > A list that sits besides the existing free_area, contains only >=pageblock > order sizes of unaccepted pages (no migratetype distinguished) and we tap > into it approximately before __rmqueue_fallback()? There would be some > trickery around releasing zone-lock for doing accept_memory(), but should be > manageable. > Just curious, do we have a microbenchmark that is able to reveal the impact of such code changes before we start worrying? -- Thanks, David / dhildenb