On 2019/5/9 19:59, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Xiang Zheng <zhengxia...@huawei.com> writes:
>
>> On 2019/5/8 21:20, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>> Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Hi Markus,
>>>>
>>>> On 05/07/19 20:01, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>>>> The subject is slightly misleading. Holes read as zero. So do
>>>>> non-holes full of zeroes. The patch avoids reading the former, but
>>>>> still reads the latter.
>>>>>
>>>>> Xiang Zheng <zhengxia...@huawei.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Currently we fill the memory space with two 64MB NOR images when
>>>>>> using persistent UEFI variables on virt board. Actually we only use
>>>>>> a very small(non-zero) part of the memory while the rest significant
>>>>>> large(zero) part of memory is wasted.
>>>>>
>>>>> Neglects to mention that the "virt board" is ARM.
>>>>>
>>>>>> So this patch checks the block status and only writes the non-zero part
>>>>>> into memory. This requires pflash devices to use sparse files for
>>>>>> backends.
>>>>>
>>>>> I started to draft an improved commit message, but then I realized this
>>>>> patch can't work.
>>>>>
>>>>> The pflash_cfi01 device allocates its device memory like this:
>>>>>
>>>>> memory_region_init_rom_device(
>>>>> &pfl->mem, OBJECT(dev),
>>>>> &pflash_cfi01_ops,
>>>>> pfl,
>>>>> pfl->name, total_len, &local_err);
>>>>>
>>>>> pflash_cfi02 is similar.
>>>>>
>>>>> memory_region_init_rom_device() calls
>>>>> memory_region_init_rom_device_nomigrate() calls qemu_ram_alloc() calls
>>>>> qemu_ram_alloc_internal() calls g_malloc0(). Thus, all the device
>>>>> memory gets written to even with this patch.
>>>>
>>>> As far as I can see, qemu_ram_alloc_internal() calls g_malloc0() only to
>>>> allocate the the new RAMBlock object called "new_block". The actual
>>>> guest RAM allocation occurs inside ram_block_add(), which is also called
>>>> by qemu_ram_alloc_internal().
>>>
>>> You're right. I should've read more attentively.
>>>
>>>> One frame outwards the stack, qemu_ram_alloc() passes NULL to
>>>> qemu_ram_alloc_internal(), for the 4th ("host") parameter. Therefore, in
>>>> qemu_ram_alloc_internal(), we set "new_block->host" to NULL as well.
>>>>
>>>> Then in ram_block_add(), we take the (!new_block->host) branch, and call
>>>> phys_mem_alloc().
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, "phys_mem_alloc" is a function pointer, set with
>>>> phys_mem_set_alloc(). The phys_mem_set_alloc() function is called from
>>>> "target/s390x/kvm.c" (setting the function pointer to
>>>> legacy_s390_alloc()), so it doesn't apply in this case. Therefore we end
>>>> up calling the default qemu_anon_ram_alloc() function, through the
>>>> funcptr. (I think anyway.)
>>>>
>>>> And qemu_anon_ram_alloc() boils down to mmap() + MAP_ANONYMOUS, in
>>>> qemu_ram_mmap(). (Even on PPC64 hosts, because qemu_anon_ram_alloc()
>>>> passes (-1) for "fd".)
>>>>
>>>> I may have missed something, of course -- I obviously didn't test it,
>>>> just speculated from the source.
>>>
>>> Thanks for your sleuthing!
>>>
>>>>> I'm afraid you neglected to test.
>>>
>>> Accusation actually unsupported. I apologize, and replace it by a
>>> question: have you observed the improvement you're trying to achieve,
>>> and if yes, how?
>>>
>>
>> Yes, we need to create sparse files as the backing images for pflash device.
>> To create sparse files like:
>>
>> dd of="QEMU_EFI-pflash.raw" if="/dev/zero" bs=1M seek=64 count=0
>> dd of="QEMU_EFI-pflash.raw" if="QEMU_EFI.fd" conv=notrunc
>
> This creates a copy of firmware binary QEMU_EFI.fd padded with a hole to
> 64MiB.
>
>> dd of="empty_VARS.fd" if="/dev/zero" bs=1M seek=64 count=0
>
> This creates the varstore as a 64MiB hole. As far as I know (very
> little), you should use the varstore template that comes with the
> firmware binary.
>
> I use
>
> cp --sparse=always bld/pc-bios/edk2-arm-vars.fd .
> cp --sparse=always bld/pc-bios/edk2-aarch64-code.fd .
>
> These guys are already zero-padded, and I use cp to sparsify.
>
>> Start a VM with below commandline:
>>
>> -drive
>> file=/usr/share/edk2/aarch64/QEMU_EFI-pflash.raw,if=pflash,format=raw,unit=0,readonly=on\
>> -drive
>> file=/usr/share/edk2/aarch64/empty_VARS.fd,if=pflash,format=raw,unit=1 \
>>
>> Then observe the memory usage of the qemu process (THP is on).
>>
>> 1) Without this patch:
>> # cat /proc/`pidof qemu-system-aarch64`/smaps | grep AnonHugePages: | grep
>> -v ' 0 kB'
>> AnonHugePages: 706560 kB
>> AnonHugePages: 2048 kB
>> AnonHugePages: 65536 kB // pflash memory device
>> AnonHugePages: 65536 kB // pflash memory device
>> AnonHugePages: 2048 kB
>>
>> # ps aux | grep qemu-system-aarch64
>> RSS: 879684
>>
>> 2) After applying this patch:
>> # cat /proc/`pidof qemu-system-aarch64`/smaps | grep AnonHugePages: | grep
>> -v ' 0 kB'
>> AnonHugePages: 700416 kB
>> AnonHugePages: 2048 kB
>> AnonHugePages: 2048 kB // pflash memory device
>> AnonHugePages: 2048 kB // pflash memory device
>> AnonHugePages: 2048 kB
>>
>> # ps aux | grep qemu-system-aarch64
>> RSS: 744380
>
> Okay, this demonstrates the patch succeeds at mapping parts of the
> pflash memory as holes.
>
> Do the guests in these QEMU processes run?
Yes.
>
>> Obviously, there are at least 100MiB memory saved for each guest.
>
> For a definition of "memory".
>
> Next question: what impact on system performance do you observe?
>
> Let me explain.
>
> Virtual memory holes get filled in by demand paging on access. In other
> words, they remain holes only as long as nothing accesses the memory.
>
> Without your patch, we allocate pages at image read time and fill them
> with zeroes. If we don't access them again, the kernel will eventually
> page them out (assuming you're running with swap). So the steady state
> is "we waste some swap space", not "we waste some physical RAM".
>
Not everybody wants to run with swap because it may cause low performance.
> Your patch lets us map pflash memory pages containing only zeros as
> holes.
>
> For pages that never get accessed, your patch avoids page allocation,
> filling with zeroes, writing to swap (all one-time costs), and saves
> some swap space (not commonly an issue).
>
> For pflash memory that gets accessed, your patch merely delays page
> allocation from image read time to first access.
>
> I wonder how these savings and delays affect actual system performance.
> Without an observable change in system performance, all we'd accomplish
> is changing a bunch of numers in /proc/$pid/.
>
> What improvement(s) can you observe?
We only use pflash device for UEFI, and we hardly care about the performance.
I think the bottleneck of the performance is the MMIO emulation, even this
patch would delay page allocation at the first access.
>
> I guess the best case for your patch is many guests with relatively
> small RAM sizes.
>
> .
>
--
Thanks,
Xiang
