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

Re: [PATCH] xen/page_alloc: Simplify domain_adjust_tot_pages


  • To: Alejandro Vallejo <alejandro.vallejo@xxxxxxxxx>
  • From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2025 11:49:11 +0100
  • Autocrypt: addr=jbeulich@xxxxxxxx; keydata= xsDiBFk3nEQRBADAEaSw6zC/EJkiwGPXbWtPxl2xCdSoeepS07jW8UgcHNurfHvUzogEq5xk hu507c3BarVjyWCJOylMNR98Yd8VqD9UfmX0Hb8/BrA+Hl6/DB/eqGptrf4BSRwcZQM32aZK 7Pj2XbGWIUrZrd70x1eAP9QE3P79Y2oLrsCgbZJfEwCgvz9JjGmQqQkRiTVzlZVCJYcyGGsD /0tbFCzD2h20ahe8rC1gbb3K3qk+LpBtvjBu1RY9drYk0NymiGbJWZgab6t1jM7sk2vuf0Py O9Hf9XBmK0uE9IgMaiCpc32XV9oASz6UJebwkX+zF2jG5I1BfnO9g7KlotcA/v5ClMjgo6Gl MDY4HxoSRu3i1cqqSDtVlt+AOVBJBACrZcnHAUSuCXBPy0jOlBhxPqRWv6ND4c9PH1xjQ3NP nxJuMBS8rnNg22uyfAgmBKNLpLgAGVRMZGaGoJObGf72s6TeIqKJo/LtggAS9qAUiuKVnygo 3wjfkS9A3DRO+SpU7JqWdsveeIQyeyEJ/8PTowmSQLakF+3fote9ybzd880fSmFuIEJldWxp Y2ggPGpiZXVsaWNoQHN1c2UuY29tPsJgBBMRAgAgBQJZN5xEAhsDBgsJCAcDAgQVAggDBBYC AwECHgECF4AACgkQoDSui/t3IH4J+wCfQ5jHdEjCRHj23O/5ttg9r9OIruwAn3103WUITZee e7Sbg12UgcQ5lv7SzsFNBFk3nEQQCACCuTjCjFOUdi5Nm244F+78kLghRcin/awv+IrTcIWF hUpSs1Y91iQQ7KItirz5uwCPlwejSJDQJLIS+QtJHaXDXeV6NI0Uef1hP20+y8qydDiVkv6l IreXjTb7DvksRgJNvCkWtYnlS3mYvQ9NzS9PhyALWbXnH6sIJd2O9lKS1Mrfq+y0IXCP10eS FFGg+Av3IQeFatkJAyju0PPthyTqxSI4lZYuJVPknzgaeuJv/2NccrPvmeDg6Coe7ZIeQ8Yj t0ARxu2xytAkkLCel1Lz1WLmwLstV30g80nkgZf/wr+/BXJW/oIvRlonUkxv+IbBM3dX2OV8 AmRv1ySWPTP7AAMFB/9PQK/VtlNUJvg8GXj9ootzrteGfVZVVT4XBJkfwBcpC/XcPzldjv+3 HYudvpdNK3lLujXeA5fLOH+Z/G9WBc5pFVSMocI71I8bT8lIAzreg0WvkWg5V2WZsUMlnDL9 mpwIGFhlbM3gfDMs7MPMu8YQRFVdUvtSpaAs8OFfGQ0ia3LGZcjA6Ik2+xcqscEJzNH+qh8V m5jjp28yZgaqTaRbg3M/+MTbMpicpZuqF4rnB0AQD12/3BNWDR6bmh+EkYSMcEIpQmBM51qM EKYTQGybRCjpnKHGOxG0rfFY1085mBDZCH5Kx0cl0HVJuQKC+dV2ZY5AqjcKwAxpE75MLFkr wkkEGBECAAkFAlk3nEQCGwwACgkQoDSui/t3IH7nnwCfcJWUDUFKdCsBH/E5d+0ZnMQi+G0A nAuWpQkjM1ASeQwSHEeAWPgskBQL
  • Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, Anthony PERARD <anthony.perard@xxxxxxxxxx>, Michal Orzel <michal.orzel@xxxxxxx>, Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>, Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>, Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Delivery-date: Wed, 05 Mar 2025 10:49:24 +0000
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>

On 27.02.2025 15:36, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
> On Wed Feb 26, 2025 at 2:05 PM GMT, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 24.02.2025 15:49, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
>>> Open question to whoever reviews this...
>>>
>>> On Mon Feb 24, 2025 at 1:27 PM GMT, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
>>>>      spin_lock(&heap_lock);
>>>> -    /* adjust domain outstanding pages; may not go negative */
>>>> -    dom_before = d->outstanding_pages;
>>>> -    dom_after = dom_before - pages;
>>>> -    BUG_ON(dom_before < 0);
>>>> -    dom_claimed = dom_after < 0 ? 0 : dom_after;
>>>> -    d->outstanding_pages = dom_claimed;
>>>> -    /* flag accounting bug if system outstanding_claims would go negative 
>>>> */
>>>> -    sys_before = outstanding_claims;
>>>> -    sys_after = sys_before - (dom_before - dom_claimed);
>>>> -    BUG_ON(sys_after < 0);
>>>> -    outstanding_claims = sys_after;
>>>> +    BUG_ON(outstanding_claims < d->outstanding_pages);
>>>> +    if ( pages > 0 && d->outstanding_pages < pages )
>>>> +    {
>>>> +        /* `pages` exceeds the domain's outstanding count. Zero it out. */
>>>> +        outstanding_claims -= d->outstanding_pages;
>>>> +        d->outstanding_pages = 0;
>>>
>>> While this matches the previous behaviour, do we _really_ want it? It's 
>>> weird,
>>> quirky, and it hard to extend to NUMA-aware claims (which is something in
>>> midway through).
>>>
>>> Wouldn't it make sense to fail the allocation (earlier) if the claim has run
>>> out? Do we even expect this to ever happen this late in the allocation call
>>> chain?
>>
>> This goes back to what a "claim" means. Even without any claim, a domain may
>> allocate memory. So a claim having run out doesn't imply allocation has to
>> fail.
> 
> Hmmm... but that violates the purpose of the claim infra as far as I 
> understand
> it. If a domain may overallocate by (e.g) ballooning in memory it can distort 
> the
> ability of another domain to start up, even if it succeeded in its own claim.

Why would that be? As long as we hold back enough memory to cover the claim, it
shouldn't matter what kind of allocation we want to process. I'd say that a PV
guest starting ballooned ought to be able to deflate its balloon as far as
there was a claim established for it up front.

> We might also break the invariant that total claims are strictly >=
> total_avail_pages.

Same here - I don't see why this would happen as long as all accounting is
working correctly.

> I'm somewhat puzzled at the "why" of having separate concepts for max_mem and
> claims. I guess it simply grew the way it did. Reinstating sanity would
> probably involve making max_mem effectively the claim, but that's a ton of
> work I really would rather not do for now.

To me the two are different (beyond claim being global while max-mem is per-
domain). max-mem is a hard boundary (beyond which allocations _will_ fail),
whereas a claim is a softer one, beyond which allocations _may_ fail.

Jan



 


Rackspace

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