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

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3] xen/balloon: Mark unallocated host memory as UNUSABLE

  • To: Igor Druzhinin <igor.druzhinin@xxxxxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • From: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 22:28:12 -0500
  • Autocrypt: addr=boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= xsFNBFH8CgsBEAC0KiOi9siOvlXatK2xX99e/J3OvApoYWjieVQ9232Eb7GzCWrItCzP8FUV PQg8rMsSd0OzIvvjbEAvaWLlbs8wa3MtVLysHY/DfqRK9Zvr/RgrsYC6ukOB7igy2PGqZd+M MDnSmVzik0sPvB6xPV7QyFsykEgpnHbvdZAUy/vyys8xgT0PVYR5hyvhyf6VIfGuvqIsvJw5 C8+P71CHI+U/IhsKrLrsiYHpAhQkw+Zvyeml6XSi5w4LXDbF+3oholKYCkPwxmGdK8MUIdkM d7iYdKqiP4W6FKQou/lC3jvOceGupEoDV9botSWEIIlKdtm6C4GfL45RD8V4B9iy24JHPlom woVWc0xBZboQguhauQqrBFooHO3roEeM1pxXjLUbDtH4t3SAI3gt4dpSyT3EvzhyNQVVIxj2 FXnIChrYxR6S0ijSqUKO0cAduenhBrpYbz9qFcB/GyxD+ZWY7OgQKHUZMWapx5bHGQ8bUZz2 SfjZwK+GETGhfkvNMf6zXbZkDq4kKB/ywaKvVPodS1Poa44+B9sxbUp1jMfFtlOJ3AYB0WDS Op3d7F2ry20CIf1Ifh0nIxkQPkTX7aX5rI92oZeu5u038dHUu/dO2EcuCjl1eDMGm5PLHDSP 0QUw5xzk1Y8MG1JQ56PtqReO33inBXG63yTIikJmUXFTw6lLJwARAQABzTNCb3JpcyBPc3Ry b3Zza3kgKFdvcmspIDxib3Jpcy5vc3Ryb3Zza3lAb3JhY2xlLmNvbT7CwXgEEwECACIFAlH8 CgsCGwMGCwkIBwMCBhUIAgkKCwQWAgMBAh4BAheAAAoJEIredpCGysGyasEP/j5xApopUf4g 9Fl3UxZuBx+oduuw3JHqgbGZ2siA3EA4bKwtKq8eT7ekpApn4c0HA8TWTDtgZtLSV5IdH+9z JimBDrhLkDI3Zsx2CafL4pMJvpUavhc5mEU8myp4dWCuIylHiWG65agvUeFZYK4P33fGqoaS VGx3tsQIAr7MsQxilMfRiTEoYH0WWthhE0YVQzV6kx4wj4yLGYPPBtFqnrapKKC8yFTpgjaK jImqWhU9CSUAXdNEs/oKVR1XlkDpMCFDl88vKAuJwugnixjbPFTVPyoC7+4Bm/FnL3iwlJVE qIGQRspt09r+datFzPqSbp5Fo/9m4JSvgtPp2X2+gIGgLPWp2ft1NXHHVWP19sPgEsEJXSr9 tskM8ScxEkqAUuDs6+x/ISX8wa5Pvmo65drN+JWA8EqKOHQG6LUsUdJolFM2i4Z0k40BnFU/ kjTARjrXW94LwokVy4x+ZYgImrnKWeKac6fMfMwH2aKpCQLlVxdO4qvJkv92SzZz4538az1T m+3ekJAimou89cXwXHCFb5WqJcyjDfdQF857vTn1z4qu7udYCuuV/4xDEhslUq1+GcNDjAhB nNYPzD+SvhWEsrjuXv+fDONdJtmLUpKs4Jtak3smGGhZsqpcNv8nQzUGDQZjuCSmDqW8vn2o hWwveNeRTkxh+2x1Qb3GT46uzsFNBFH8CgsBEADGC/yx5ctcLQlB9hbq7KNqCDyZNoYu1HAB Hal3MuxPfoGKObEktawQPQaSTB5vNlDxKihezLnlT/PKjcXC2R1OjSDinlu5XNGc6mnky03q yymUPyiMtWhBBftezTRxWRslPaFWlg/h/Y1iDuOcklhpr7K1h1jRPCrf1yIoxbIpDbffnuyz kuto4AahRvBU4Js4sU7f/btU+h+e0AcLVzIhTVPIz7PM+Gk2LNzZ3/on4dnEc/qd+ZZFlOQ4 KDN/hPqlwA/YJsKzAPX51L6Vv344pqTm6Z0f9M7YALB/11FO2nBB7zw7HAUYqJeHutCwxm7i BDNt0g9fhviNcJzagqJ1R7aPjtjBoYvKkbwNu5sWDpQ4idnsnck4YT6ctzN4I+6lfkU8zMzC gM2R4qqUXmxFIS4Bee+gnJi0Pc3KcBYBZsDK44FtM//5Cp9DrxRQOh19kNHBlxkmEb8kL/pw XIDcEq8MXzPBbxwHKJ3QRWRe5jPNpf8HCjnZz0XyJV0/4M1JvOua7IZftOttQ6KnM4m6WNIZ 2ydg7dBhDa6iv1oKdL7wdp/rCulVWn8R7+3cRK95SnWiJ0qKDlMbIN8oGMhHdin8cSRYdmHK kTnvSGJNlkis5a+048o0C6jI3LozQYD/W9wq7MvgChgVQw1iEOB4u/3FXDEGulRVko6xCBU4 SQARAQABwsFfBBgBAgAJBQJR/AoLAhsMAAoJEIredpCGysGyfvMQAIywR6jTqix6/fL0Ip8G jpt3uk//QNxGJE3ZkUNLX6N786vnEJvc1beCu6EwqD1ezG9fJKMl7F3SEgpYaiKEcHfoKGdh 30B3Hsq44vOoxR6zxw2B/giADjhmWTP5tWQ9548N4VhIZMYQMQCkdqaueSL+8asp8tBNP+TJ PAIIANYvJaD8xA7sYUXGTzOXDh2THWSvmEWWmzok8er/u6ZKdS1YmZkUy8cfzrll/9hiGCTj u3qcaOM6i/m4hqtvsI1cOORMVwjJF4+IkC5ZBoeRs/xW5zIBdSUoC8L+OCyj5JETWTt40+lu qoqAF/AEGsNZTrwHJYu9rbHH260C0KYCNqmxDdcROUqIzJdzDKOrDmebkEVnxVeLJBIhYZUd t3Iq9hdjpU50TA6sQ3mZxzBdfRgg+vaj2DsJqI5Xla9QGKD+xNT6v14cZuIMZzO7w0DoojM4 ByrabFsOQxGvE0w9Dch2BDSI2Xyk1zjPKxG1VNBQVx3flH37QDWpL2zlJikW29Ws86PHdthh Fm5PY8YtX576DchSP6qJC57/eAAe/9ztZdVAdesQwGb9hZHJc75B+VNm4xrh/PJO6c1THqdQ 19WVJ+7rDx3PhVncGlbAOiiiE3NOFPJ1OQYxPKtpBUukAlOTnkKE6QcA4zckFepUkfmBV1wM Jg6OxFYd01z+a+oL
  • Cc: jgross@xxxxxxxx, helgaas@xxxxxxxxxx, christian.koenig@xxxxxxx, JBeulich@xxxxxxxx
  • Delivery-date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 03:28:51 +0000
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
  • Openpgp: preference=signencrypt

On 11/26/18 2:57 PM, Igor Druzhinin wrote:
> On 26/11/2018 19:42, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>> On 11/26/18 12:10 PM, Igor Druzhinin wrote:
>>> On 26/11/2018 16:25, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>>> On 11/25/18 8:00 PM, Igor Druzhinin wrote:
>>>>> On 20/12/2017 14:05, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>>>>> Commit f5775e0b6116 ("x86/xen: discard RAM regions above the maximum
>>>>>> reservation") left host memory not assigned to dom0 as available for
>>>>>> memory hotplug.
>>>>>> Unfortunately this also meant that those regions could be used by
>>>>>> others. Specifically, commit fa564ad96366 ("x86/PCI: Enable a 64bit BAR
>>>>>> on AMD Family 15h (Models 00-1f, 30-3f, 60-7f)") may try to map those
>>>>>> addresses as MMIO.
>>>>>> To prevent this mark unallocated host memory as E820_TYPE_UNUSABLE (thus
>>>>>> effectively reverting f5775e0b6116) and keep track of that region as
>>>>>> a hostmem resource that can be used for the hotplug.
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> This commit breaks Xen balloon memory hotplug for us in Dom0 with
>>>>> "hoplug_unpopulated" set to 1. The issue is that the common kernel
>>>>> memory onlining procedures require "System RAM" resource to be 1-st
>>>>> level. That means by inserting it under "Unusable memory" as the commit
>>>>> above does (intentionally or not) we make it 2-nd level and break memory
>>>>> onlining.
>>>> What do you mean by 1st and 2nd level?
>>> I mean the level of a resource in IOMEM tree (the one that's printed
>>> from /proc/iomem). 1-st level means its parent is root and so on.
>> Ah, OK. Doesn't
>> additional_memory_resource()->insert_resource(iomem_resource) place the
>> RAM at 1st level? And if not, can we make it so?
> That'd mean splitting "Unusable memory" resource. Since it's allocated
> from bootmem it has proven to be quite difficult but there are seem to
> be special functions available particularly for memory resource
> management operations that I've not yet experimented with. So the answer
> is probably - maybe yes but not straightforward.
>>>>> There are multiple ways to fix it depending on what was the intention of
>>>>> original commit and what exactly it tried to workaround. It seems it
>>>>> does several things at once:
>>>>> 1) Marks non-Dom0 host memory "Unusable memory" in resource tree.
>>>>> 2) Keeps track of all the areas safe for hotplug in Dom0
>>>>> 3) Changes allocation algorithms itself in balloon driver to use those 
>>>>> areas
>>>> Pretty much. (3) is true in the sense that memory is first allocated
>>>> from hostmem_resource (which is non-dom0 RAM).
>>>>> Are all the things above necessary to cover the issue in fa564ad96366
>>>>> ("x86/PCI: Enable a 64bit BAR on AMD Family 15h (Models 00-1f, 30-3f,
>>>>> 60-7f)")?
>>>> Not anymore, as far as that particular commit is concerned, but that's
>>>> because of 03a551734 ("x86/PCI: Move and shrink AMD 64-bit window to
>>>> avoid conflict") which was introduced after balloon patch. IIRC there
>>>> were some issues with fa564ad96366 unrelated to balloon.
>>> If it's not a problem anymore IIUC, can we revert the change as it still
>>> breaks "hotplug_unpopulated=1" for the reasons I described above?
>> Since this seems to have broken existing feature this would be an
>> option. But before going that route I'd like to see if we can fix the patch.
>> I have been unable to reproduce your problem. Can you describe what you did?
> It doesn't happen on all configurations as sometimes the memory is
> successfully hotplugged to a hole depending on the size of Dom0 memory.
> But we reproduced it quite reliably with small Dom0 sizes like 752MB.
> XenServer is using this feature to hotplug additional memory for grant
> table operations so we started a VM and observed a stable hang.
>>>>> Can we remove "Unusable memory" resources as soon as we finished
>>>>> booting? Is removing on-demand is preferable over "shoot them all" in
>>>>> that case?
>>>> The concern is that in principle nothing prevents someone else to do
>>>> exact same thing fa564ad96366 did, which is grab something from right
>>>> above end of RAM as the kernel sees it. And that can be done at any point.
>>> Nothing prevents - true, but that's plainly wrong from OS point of view
>>> to grab physical ranges for something without knowing what's actually
>>> behind on that platform. 
>> I am not sure I agree that this is plainly wrong. If not for BIOS issues
>> that 03a551734cf mentions I think what the original implementation of
>> fa564ad963 did was perfectly reasonable. Which is why I would prefer to
>> keep keep the hostmem resource *if possible*.
> Exactly, those *are* BIOS issues and are not supposed to be workarounded
> by the OS. And as the next commit showed even the workaround didn't
> quite helped with it.
> I agree that having hotmem as a precaution is fine but only if there is
> a non-cringy way to keep things working with it which I'm not sure does
> exist.

We have most of the interfaces in the resource framework to do what we
want. I put together a semi-working prototype but the tricky part is
resource locking --- we need to remove a chunk from hostmem (which will
cause hostmem to be resized and possibly split), and insert this chunk
to iomem's top level as System RAM, all while holding resource_lock.

I haven't been able to come up with an acceptable interface for that.

Given that we are actually broken I guess I am OK with reverting the
patch, but please make sure this works on AMD boxes (I think family 15h
is what needs to be tested).


> Igor
>> -boris
>>> I think we shouldn't consider this as a valid
>>> thing to do and don't try to workaround initially incorrect code.
>>>> -boris
>>>>> Does it even make sense to remove the 1-st level only restriction in
>>>>> kernel/resource.c ?
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Xen-devel mailing list



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