[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 19/20] x86/mem_sharing: reset a fork


On 18/12/2019 22:33, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 3:00 PM Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Tamas,

On 18/12/2019 19:40, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
Implement hypercall that allows a fork to shed all memory that got allocated
for it during its execution and re-load its vCPU context from the parent VM.
This allows the forked VM to reset into the same state the parent VM is in a
faster way then creating a new fork would be. Measurements show about a 2x
speedup during normal fuzzing operations. Performance may vary depending how
much memory got allocated for the forked VM. If it has been completely
deduplicated from the parent VM then creating a new fork would likely be more

Signed-off-by: Tamas K Lengyel <tamas.lengyel@xxxxxxxxx>
   xen/arch/x86/mm/mem_sharing.c | 105 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
   xen/include/public/memory.h   |   1 +
   2 files changed, 106 insertions(+)

diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/mm/mem_sharing.c b/xen/arch/x86/mm/mem_sharing.c
index e93ad2ec5a..4735a334b9 100644
--- a/xen/arch/x86/mm/mem_sharing.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm/mem_sharing.c
@@ -1622,6 +1622,87 @@ static int mem_sharing_fork(struct domain *d, struct 
domain *cd)
       return 0;

+struct gfn_free;
+struct gfn_free {
+    struct gfn_free *next;
+    struct page_info *page;
+    gfn_t gfn;
+static int mem_sharing_fork_reset(struct domain *d, struct domain *cd)
+    int rc;
+    struct p2m_domain* p2m = p2m_get_hostp2m(cd);
+    struct gfn_free *list = NULL;
+    struct page_info *page;
+    page_list_for_each(page, &cd->page_list)

AFAICT, your domain is not paused, so it would be possible to have page
added/remove in that list behind your back.

Well, it's not that it's not paused, it's just that I haven't added a
sanity check to make sure it is. The toolstack can (and should) pause
it, so that sanity check would be warranted.
I have only read the hypervisor part, so I didn't know what the toolstack has done.

You also have multiple loop on the page_list in this function. Given the
number of page_list can be quite big, this is a call for hogging the
pCPU and an RCU lock on the domain vCPU running this call.

There is just one loop over page_list itself, the second loop is on
the internal list that is being built here which will be a subset. The
list itself in fact should be small (in our tests usually <100).

For a first, nothing in this function tells me that there will be only 100 pages. But then, I don't think this is right to implement your hypercall based only the "normal" scenario. You should also think about the "worst" case scenario.

In this case the worst case scenario is have hundreds of page in page_list.

Granted the list can grow larger, but in those cases its likely better
to just discard the fork and create a new one. So in my opinion adding
a hypercall continuation to this not needed

How would the caller know it? What would happen if the caller ends up to call this with a growing list.

+    {
+        mfn_t mfn = page_to_mfn(page);
+        if ( mfn_valid(mfn) )
+        {
+            p2m_type_t p2mt;
+            p2m_access_t p2ma;
+            gfn_t gfn = mfn_to_gfn(cd, mfn);
+            mfn = __get_gfn_type_access(p2m, gfn_x(gfn), &p2mt, &p2ma,
+                                        0, NULL, false);
+            if ( p2m_is_ram(p2mt) )
+            {
+                struct gfn_free *gfn_free;
+                if ( !get_page(page, cd) )
+                    goto err_reset;
+                /*
+                 * We can't free the page while iterating over the page_list
+                 * so we build a separate list to loop over.
+                 *
+                 * We want to iterate over the page_list instead of checking
+                 * gfn from 0 to max_gfn because this is ~10x faster.
+                 */
+                gfn_free = xmalloc(struct gfn_free);

If I did the math right, for a 4G guest this will require at ~24MB of
memory. Actually, is it really necessary to do the allocation for a
short period of time?

If you have a fully deduplicated fork then you should not be using
this function to begin with. You get better performance my throwing
that one away and creating a new one.

How a user knows when/how this can be called? But then, as said above, this may be called by mistake... So I still think you need to be prepare for the worst case.

As for using xmalloc here, I'm
not sure what other way I have to build a list of pages that need to
be freed. I can't free the page itself while I'm iterating on
page_list (that I'm aware of). The only other option available is
calling __get_gfn_type_access with gfn=0..max_gfn which will be
extremely slow because you have to loop over a lot of holes.
You can use page_list_for_each_safe(). This is already used by function such as relinquish_memory().

What are you trying to achieve by iterating twice on the GFN? Wouldn't
it be easier to pause the domain?

I'm not sure what you mean, where do you see me iterating twice on the
gfn? And what does pausing have to do with it?

It was unclear why you decided to use a double loop here. You explained it above, so this can be discarded.


Julien Grall

Xen-devel mailing list



Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.