Michael S. Tsirkin
2022-Sep-28 20:02 UTC
[PATCH] vhost/vsock: Use kvmalloc/kvfree for larger packets.
On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 05:11:35PM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote:> On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 05:31:58AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 10:28:23AM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 03:45:38PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote: > > > > When copying a large file over sftp over vsock, data size is usually 32kB, > > > > and kmalloc seems to fail to try to allocate 32 32kB regions. > > > > > > > > Call Trace: > > > > [<ffffffffb6a0df64>] dump_stack+0x97/0xdb > > > > [<ffffffffb68d6aed>] warn_alloc_failed+0x10f/0x138 > > > > [<ffffffffb68d868a>] ? __alloc_pages_direct_compact+0x38/0xc8 > > > > [<ffffffffb664619f>] __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x84c/0x90d > > > > [<ffffffffb6646e56>] alloc_kmem_pages+0x17/0x19 > > > > [<ffffffffb6653a26>] kmalloc_order_trace+0x2b/0xdb > > > > [<ffffffffb66682f3>] __kmalloc+0x177/0x1f7 > > > > [<ffffffffb66e0d94>] ? copy_from_iter+0x8d/0x31d > > > > [<ffffffffc0689ab7>] vhost_vsock_handle_tx_kick+0x1fa/0x301 [vhost_vsock] > > > > [<ffffffffc06828d9>] vhost_worker+0xf7/0x157 [vhost] > > > > [<ffffffffb683ddce>] kthread+0xfd/0x105 > > > > [<ffffffffc06827e2>] ? vhost_dev_set_owner+0x22e/0x22e [vhost] > > > > [<ffffffffb683dcd1>] ? flush_kthread_worker+0xf3/0xf3 > > > > [<ffffffffb6eb332e>] ret_from_fork+0x4e/0x80 > > > > [<ffffffffb683dcd1>] ? flush_kthread_worker+0xf3/0xf3 > > > > > > > > Work around by doing kvmalloc instead. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Junichi Uekawa <uekawa at chromium.org> > > > > My worry here is that this in more of a work around. > > It would be better to not allocate memory so aggressively: > > if we are so short on memory we should probably process > > packets one at a time. Is that very hard to implement? > > Currently the "virtio_vsock_pkt" is allocated in the "handle_kick" callback > of TX virtqueue. Then the packet is multiplexed on the right socket queue, > then the user space can de-queue it whenever they want. > > So maybe we can stop processing the virtqueue if we are short on memory, but > when can we restart the TX virtqueue processing?Assuming you added at least one buffer, the time to restart would be after that buffer has been used.> I think as long as the guest used only 4K buffers we had no problem, but now > that it can create larger buffers the host may not be able to allocate it > contiguously. Since there is no need to have them contiguous here, I think > this patch is okay. > > However, if we switch to sk_buff (as Bobby is already doing), maybe we don't > have this problem because I think there is some kind of pre-allocated pool. > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > drivers/vhost/vsock.c | 2 +- > > > > net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c | 2 +- > > > > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vsock.c b/drivers/vhost/vsock.c > > > > index 368330417bde..5703775af129 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/vhost/vsock.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/vhost/vsock.c > > > > @@ -393,7 +393,7 @@ vhost_vsock_alloc_pkt(struct vhost_virtqueue *vq, > > > > return NULL; > > > > } > > > > > > > > - pkt->buf = kmalloc(pkt->len, GFP_KERNEL); > > > > + pkt->buf = kvmalloc(pkt->len, GFP_KERNEL); > > > > if (!pkt->buf) { > > > > kfree(pkt); > > > > return NULL; > > > > diff --git a/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c b/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c > > > > index ec2c2afbf0d0..3a12aee33e92 100644 > > > > --- a/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c > > > > +++ b/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c > > > > @@ -1342,7 +1342,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(virtio_transport_recv_pkt); > > > > > > > > void virtio_transport_free_pkt(struct virtio_vsock_pkt *pkt) > > > > { > > > > - kfree(pkt->buf); > > > > + kvfree(pkt->buf); > > > > > > virtio_transport_free_pkt() is used also in virtio_transport.c and > > > vsock_loopback.c where pkt->buf is allocated with kmalloc(), but IIUC > > > kvfree() can be used with that memory, so this should be fine. > > > > > > > kfree(pkt); > > > > } > > > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(virtio_transport_free_pkt); > > > > -- > > > > 2.37.3.998.g577e59143f-goog > > > > > > > > > > This issue should go away with the Bobby's work about introducing sk_buff > > > [1], but we can queue this for now. > > > > > > I'm not sure if we should do the same also in the virtio-vsock driver > > > (virtio_transport.c). Here in vhost-vsock the buf allocated is only used in > > > the host, while in the virtio-vsock driver the buffer is exposed to the > > > device emulated in the host, so it should be physically contiguous (if not, > > > maybe we need to adjust virtio_vsock_rx_fill()). > > > > More importantly it needs to support DMA API which IIUC kvmalloc > > memory does not. > > > > Right, good point! > > Thanks, > Stefano
Stefano Garzarella
2022-Sep-29 07:40 UTC
[PATCH] vhost/vsock: Use kvmalloc/kvfree for larger packets.
On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 04:02:12PM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:>On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 05:11:35PM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 05:31:58AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >> > On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 10:28:23AM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote: >> > > On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 03:45:38PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote: >> > > > When copying a large file over sftp over vsock, data size is usually 32kB, >> > > > and kmalloc seems to fail to try to allocate 32 32kB regions. >> > > > >> > > > Call Trace: >> > > > [<ffffffffb6a0df64>] dump_stack+0x97/0xdb >> > > > [<ffffffffb68d6aed>] warn_alloc_failed+0x10f/0x138 >> > > > [<ffffffffb68d868a>] ? __alloc_pages_direct_compact+0x38/0xc8 >> > > > [<ffffffffb664619f>] __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x84c/0x90d >> > > > [<ffffffffb6646e56>] alloc_kmem_pages+0x17/0x19 >> > > > [<ffffffffb6653a26>] kmalloc_order_trace+0x2b/0xdb >> > > > [<ffffffffb66682f3>] __kmalloc+0x177/0x1f7 >> > > > [<ffffffffb66e0d94>] ? copy_from_iter+0x8d/0x31d >> > > > [<ffffffffc0689ab7>] vhost_vsock_handle_tx_kick+0x1fa/0x301 [vhost_vsock] >> > > > [<ffffffffc06828d9>] vhost_worker+0xf7/0x157 [vhost] >> > > > [<ffffffffb683ddce>] kthread+0xfd/0x105 >> > > > [<ffffffffc06827e2>] ? vhost_dev_set_owner+0x22e/0x22e [vhost] >> > > > [<ffffffffb683dcd1>] ? flush_kthread_worker+0xf3/0xf3 >> > > > [<ffffffffb6eb332e>] ret_from_fork+0x4e/0x80 >> > > > [<ffffffffb683dcd1>] ? flush_kthread_worker+0xf3/0xf3 >> > > > >> > > > Work around by doing kvmalloc instead. >> > > > >> > > > Signed-off-by: Junichi Uekawa <uekawa at chromium.org> >> > >> > My worry here is that this in more of a work around. >> > It would be better to not allocate memory so aggressively: >> > if we are so short on memory we should probably process >> > packets one at a time. Is that very hard to implement? >> >> Currently the "virtio_vsock_pkt" is allocated in the "handle_kick" callback >> of TX virtqueue. Then the packet is multiplexed on the right socket queue, >> then the user space can de-queue it whenever they want. >> >> So maybe we can stop processing the virtqueue if we are short on memory, but >> when can we restart the TX virtqueue processing? > >Assuming you added at least one buffer, the time to restart would be >after that buffer has been used.Yes, but we still might not have as many continuous pages to allocate, so I would use kvmalloc the same. I agree that we should do better, I hope that moving to sk_buff will allow us to better manage allocation. Maybe after we merge that part we should spend some time to solve these problems. Thanks, Stefano