Linux Virtualization - Jul 2019 - [PATCH v4 1/5] vsock/virtio: limit the memory used per-socket

On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 06:19:03PM +0200, Stefano Garzarella
wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 11:49:02AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 05:36:56PM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 10:04:29AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin
wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 01:30:26PM +0200, Stefano Garzarella
wrote:
> > > > > Since virtio-vsock was introduced, the buffers filled
by the host
> > > > > and pushed to the guest using the vring, are directly
queued in
> > > > > a per-socket list. These buffers are preallocated by
the guest
> > > > > with a fixed size (4 KB).
> > > > > 
> > > > > The maximum amount of memory used by each socket should
be
> > > > > controlled by the credit mechanism.
> > > > > The default credit available per-socket is 256 KB, but
if we use
> > > > > only 1 byte per packet, the guest can queue up to
262144 of 4 KB
> > > > > buffers, using up to 1 GB of memory per-socket. In
addition, the
> > > > > guest will continue to fill the vring with new 4 KB
free buffers
> > > > > to avoid starvation of other sockets.
> > > > > 
> > > > > This patch mitigates this issue copying the payload of
small
> > > > > packets (< 128 bytes) into the buffer of last packet
queued, in
> > > > > order to avoid wasting memory.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Reviewed-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha at
redhat.com>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare at
redhat.com>
> > > > 
> > > > This is good enough for net-next, but for net I think we
> > > > should figure out how to address the issue completely.
> > > > Can we make the accounting precise? What happens to
> > > > performance if we do?
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > In order to do more precise accounting maybe we can use the
buffer size,
> > > instead of payload size when we update the credit available.
> > > In this way, the credit available for each socket will reflect
the memory
> > > actually used.
> > > 
> > > I should check better, because I'm not sure what happen if
the peer sees
> > > 1KB of space available, then it sends 1KB of payload (using a 4KB
> > > buffer).
> > > 
> > > The other option is to copy each packet in a new buffer like I
did in
> > > the v2 [2], but this forces us to make a copy for each packet
that does
> > > not fill the entire buffer, perhaps too expensive.
> > > 
> > > [2] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10938741/
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > Stefano
> > 
> > Interesting. You are right, and at some level the protocol forces
copies.
> > 
> > We could try to detect that the actual memory is getting close to
> > admin limits and force copies on queued packets after the fact.
> > Is that practical?
> 
> Yes, I think it is doable!
> We can decrease the credit available with the buffer size queued, and
> when the buffer size of packet to queue is bigger than the credit
> available, we can copy it.
> 
> > 
> > And yes we can extend the credit accounting to include buffer size.
> > That's a protocol change but maybe it makes sense.
> 
> Since we send to the other peer the credit available, maybe this
> change can be backwards compatible (I'll check better this).
What I said was wrong.

We send a counter (increased when the user consumes the packets) and the
"buf_alloc" (the max memory allowed) to the other peer.
It makes a difference between a local counter (increased when the
packets are sent) and the remote counter to calculate the credit available:

    u32 virtio_transport_get_credit(struct virtio_vsock_sock *vvs, u32 credit)
    {
    	u32 ret;

    	spin_lock_bh(&vvs->tx_lock);
    	ret = vvs->peer_buf_alloc - (vvs->tx_cnt - vvs->peer_fwd_cnt);
    	if (ret > credit)
    		ret = credit;
    	vvs->tx_cnt += ret;
    	spin_unlock_bh(&vvs->tx_lock);

    	return ret;
    }

Maybe I can play with "buf_alloc" to take care of bytes queued but not
used.

Thanks,
Stefano

On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 06:50:56PM +0200, Stefano Garzarella
wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 06:19:03PM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 11:49:02AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 05:36:56PM +0200, Stefano Garzarella
wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 10:04:29AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin
wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 01:30:26PM +0200, Stefano
Garzarella wrote:
> > > > > > Since virtio-vsock was introduced, the buffers
filled by the host
> > > > > > and pushed to the guest using the vring, are
directly queued in
> > > > > > a per-socket list. These buffers are preallocated
by the guest
> > > > > > with a fixed size (4 KB).
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The maximum amount of memory used by each socket
should be
> > > > > > controlled by the credit mechanism.
> > > > > > The default credit available per-socket is 256 KB,
but if we use
> > > > > > only 1 byte per packet, the guest can queue up to
262144 of 4 KB
> > > > > > buffers, using up to 1 GB of memory per-socket. In
addition, the
> > > > > > guest will continue to fill the vring with new 4
KB free buffers
> > > > > > to avoid starvation of other sockets.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > This patch mitigates this issue copying the
payload of small
> > > > > > packets (< 128 bytes) into the buffer of last
packet queued, in
> > > > > > order to avoid wasting memory.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Reviewed-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha at
redhat.com>
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare at
redhat.com>
> > > > > 
> > > > > This is good enough for net-next, but for net I think
we
> > > > > should figure out how to address the issue completely.
> > > > > Can we make the accounting precise? What happens to
> > > > > performance if we do?
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > In order to do more precise accounting maybe we can use the
buffer size,
> > > > instead of payload size when we update the credit available.
> > > > In this way, the credit available for each socket will
reflect the memory
> > > > actually used.
> > > > 
> > > > I should check better, because I'm not sure what happen
if the peer sees
> > > > 1KB of space available, then it sends 1KB of payload (using
a 4KB
> > > > buffer).
> > > > 
> > > > The other option is to copy each packet in a new buffer like
I did in
> > > > the v2 [2], but this forces us to make a copy for each
packet that does
> > > > not fill the entire buffer, perhaps too expensive.
> > > > 
> > > > [2] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10938741/
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Stefano
> > > 
> > > Interesting. You are right, and at some level the protocol forces
copies.
> > > 
> > > We could try to detect that the actual memory is getting close to
> > > admin limits and force copies on queued packets after the fact.
> > > Is that practical?
> > 
> > Yes, I think it is doable!
> > We can decrease the credit available with the buffer size queued, and
> > when the buffer size of packet to queue is bigger than the credit
> > available, we can copy it.
> > 
> > > 
> > > And yes we can extend the credit accounting to include buffer
size.
> > > That's a protocol change but maybe it makes sense.
> > 
> > Since we send to the other peer the credit available, maybe this
> > change can be backwards compatible (I'll check better this).
> 
> What I said was wrong.
> 
> We send a counter (increased when the user consumes the packets) and the
> "buf_alloc" (the max memory allowed) to the other peer.
> It makes a difference between a local counter (increased when the
> packets are sent) and the remote counter to calculate the credit available:
> 
>     u32 virtio_transport_get_credit(struct virtio_vsock_sock *vvs, u32
credit)
>     {
>     	u32 ret;
> 
>     	spin_lock_bh(&vvs->tx_lock);
>     	ret = vvs->peer_buf_alloc - (vvs->tx_cnt -
vvs->peer_fwd_cnt);
>     	if (ret > credit)
>     		ret = credit;
>     	vvs->tx_cnt += ret;
>     	spin_unlock_bh(&vvs->tx_lock);
> 
>     	return ret;
>     }
> 
> Maybe I can play with "buf_alloc" to take care of bytes queued
but not
> used.
> 
> Thanks,
> Stefano
Right. And the idea behind it all was that if we send a credit
to remote then we have space for it.
I think the basic idea was that if we have actual allocated
memory and can copy data there, then we send the credit to
remote.

Of course that means an extra copy every packet.
So as an optimization, it seems that we just assume
that we will be able to allocate a new buffer.

First this is not the best we can do. We can actually do
allocate memory in the socket before sending credit.
If packet is small then we copy it there.
If packet is big then we queue the packet,
take the buffer out of socket and add it to the virtqueue.

Second question is what to do about medium sized packets.
Packet is 1K but buffer is 4K, what do we do?
And here I wonder - why don't we add the 3K buffer
to the vq?



-- 
MST

On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 03:10:15PM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin
wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 06:50:56PM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 06:19:03PM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 11:49:02AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin
wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 05:36:56PM +0200, Stefano Garzarella
wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 10:04:29AM -0400, Michael S.
Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 01:30:26PM +0200, Stefano
Garzarella wrote:
> > > > > > > Since virtio-vsock was introduced, the
buffers filled by the host
> > > > > > > and pushed to the guest using the vring, are
directly queued in
> > > > > > > a per-socket list. These buffers are
preallocated by the guest
> > > > > > > with a fixed size (4 KB).
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > The maximum amount of memory used by each
socket should be
> > > > > > > controlled by the credit mechanism.
> > > > > > > The default credit available per-socket is
256 KB, but if we use
> > > > > > > only 1 byte per packet, the guest can queue
up to 262144 of 4 KB
> > > > > > > buffers, using up to 1 GB of memory
per-socket. In addition, the
> > > > > > > guest will continue to fill the vring with
new 4 KB free buffers
> > > > > > > to avoid starvation of other sockets.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > This patch mitigates this issue copying the
payload of small
> > > > > > > packets (< 128 bytes) into the buffer of
last packet queued, in
> > > > > > > order to avoid wasting memory.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha at
redhat.com>
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Stefano Garzarella
<sgarzare at redhat.com>
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > This is good enough for net-next, but for net I
think we
> > > > > > should figure out how to address the issue
completely.
> > > > > > Can we make the accounting precise? What happens
to
> > > > > > performance if we do?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > In order to do more precise accounting maybe we can use
the buffer size,
> > > > > instead of payload size when we update the credit
available.
> > > > > In this way, the credit available for each socket will
reflect the memory
> > > > > actually used.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I should check better, because I'm not sure what
happen if the peer sees
> > > > > 1KB of space available, then it sends 1KB of payload
(using a 4KB
> > > > > buffer).
> > > > > 
> > > > > The other option is to copy each packet in a new buffer
like I did in
> > > > > the v2 [2], but this forces us to make a copy for each
packet that does
> > > > > not fill the entire buffer, perhaps too expensive.
> > > > > 
> > > > > [2] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10938741/
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Stefano
> > > > 
> > > > Interesting. You are right, and at some level the protocol
forces copies.
> > > > 
> > > > We could try to detect that the actual memory is getting
close to
> > > > admin limits and force copies on queued packets after the
fact.
> > > > Is that practical?
> > > 
> > > Yes, I think it is doable!
> > > We can decrease the credit available with the buffer size queued,
and
> > > when the buffer size of packet to queue is bigger than the credit
> > > available, we can copy it.
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > And yes we can extend the credit accounting to include
buffer size.
> > > > That's a protocol change but maybe it makes sense.
> > > 
> > > Since we send to the other peer the credit available, maybe this
> > > change can be backwards compatible (I'll check better this).
> > 
> > What I said was wrong.
> > 
> > We send a counter (increased when the user consumes the packets) and
the
> > "buf_alloc" (the max memory allowed) to the other peer.
> > It makes a difference between a local counter (increased when the
> > packets are sent) and the remote counter to calculate the credit
available:
> > 
> >     u32 virtio_transport_get_credit(struct virtio_vsock_sock *vvs, u32
credit)
> >     {
> >     	u32 ret;
> > 
> >     	spin_lock_bh(&vvs->tx_lock);
> >     	ret = vvs->peer_buf_alloc - (vvs->tx_cnt -
vvs->peer_fwd_cnt);
> >     	if (ret > credit)
> >     		ret = credit;
> >     	vvs->tx_cnt += ret;
> >     	spin_unlock_bh(&vvs->tx_lock);
> > 
> >     	return ret;
> >     }
> > 
> > Maybe I can play with "buf_alloc" to take care of bytes
queued but not
> > used.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Stefano
> 
> Right. And the idea behind it all was that if we send a credit
> to remote then we have space for it.
Yes.
> I think the basic idea was that if we have actual allocated
> memory and can copy data there, then we send the credit to
> remote.
> 
> Of course that means an extra copy every packet.
> So as an optimization, it seems that we just assume
> that we will be able to allocate a new buffer.
Yes, we refill the virtqueue when half of the buffers were used.
> 
> First this is not the best we can do. We can actually do
> allocate memory in the socket before sending credit.
In this case, IIUC we should allocate an entire buffer (4KB),
so we can reuse it if the packet is big.
> If packet is small then we copy it there.
> If packet is big then we queue the packet,
> take the buffer out of socket and add it to the virtqueue.
> 
> Second question is what to do about medium sized packets.
> Packet is 1K but buffer is 4K, what do we do?
> And here I wonder - why don't we add the 3K buffer
> to the vq?
This would allow us to have an accurate credit account.

The problem here is the compatibility. Before this series virtio-vsock
and vhost-vsock modules had the RX buffer size hard-coded
(VIRTIO_VSOCK_DEFAULT_RX_BUF_SIZE = 4K). So, if we send a buffer smaller
of 4K, there might be issues.

Maybe it is the time to add add 'features' to virtio-vsock device.

Thanks,
Stefano