On 26/02/2025 4:42 pm, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 26.02.2025 17:34, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 26/02/2025 4:06 pm, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 26.02.2025 17:04, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 03:36:33PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 26.02.2025 15:28, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 03:08:33PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>>> On 26.02.2025 14:56, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 01:27:24PM +0000, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
>>>>>>>>> --- a/xen/common/page_alloc.c
>>>>>>>>> +++ b/xen/common/page_alloc.c
>>>>>>>>> @@ -490,13 +490,11 @@ static long outstanding_claims; /* total
>>>>>>>>> outstanding claims by all domains */
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> unsigned long domain_adjust_tot_pages(struct domain *d, long pages)
>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>> - long dom_before, dom_after, dom_claimed, sys_before, sys_after;
>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>> ASSERT(rspin_is_locked(&d->page_alloc_lock));
>>>>>>>>> d->tot_pages += pages;
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> /*
>>>>>>>>> - * can test d->claimed_pages race-free because it can only change
>>>>>>>>> + * can test d->outstanding_pages race-free because it can only
>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>> * if d->page_alloc_lock and heap_lock are both held, see also
>>>>>>>>> * domain_set_outstanding_pages below
>>>>>>>>> */
>>>>>>>>> @@ -504,17 +502,16 @@ unsigned long domain_adjust_tot_pages(struct
>>>>>>>>> domain *d, long pages)
>>>>>>>>> goto out;
>>>>>>>> I think you can probably short-circuit the logic below if pages == 0?
>>>>>>>> (and avoid taking the heap_lock)
>>>>>>> Are there callers passing in 0?
>>>>>> Not sure, but if there are no callers expected we might add an ASSERT
>>>>>> to that effect then.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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;
>>>>>>>>> + } else {
>>>>>>>>> + outstanding_claims -= pages;
>>>>>>>>> + d->outstanding_pages -= pages;
>>>>>>>> I wonder if it's intentional for a pages < 0 value to modify
>>>>>>>> outstanding_claims and d->outstanding_pages, I think those values
>>>>>>>> should only be set from domain_set_outstanding_pages().
>>>>>>>> domain_adjust_tot_pages() should only decrease the value, but never
>>>>>>>> increase either outstanding_claims or d->outstanding_pages.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> At best the behavior is inconsistent, because once
>>>>>>>> d->outstanding_pages reaches 0 there will be no further modification
>>>>>>>> from domain_adjust_tot_pages().
>>>>>>> Right, at that point the claim has run out. While freeing pages with an
>>>>>>> active claim means that the claim gets bigger (which naturally needs
>>>>>>> reflecting in the global).
>>>>>> domain_adjust_tot_pages() is not exclusively called when freeing
>>>>>> pages, see steal_page() for example.
>>>>> Or also when pages were allocated. steal_page() ...
>>>>>
>>>>>> When called from steal_page() it's wrong to increase the claim, as
>>>>>> it assumes that the page removed from d->tot_pages is freed, but
>>>>>> that's not the case. The domain might end up in a situation where
>>>>>> the claim is bigger than the available amount of memory.
>>>>> ... is a case that likely wasn't considered when the feature was added.
>>>>>
>>>>> I never really liked this; I'd be quite happy to see it ripped out, as
>>>>> long as we'd be reasonably certain it isn't in active use by people.
>>>> What do you mean with 'it' in the above sentence, the whole claim
>>>> stuff?
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>>> Or just getting rid of allowing the claim to increase as a
>>>> result of pages being removed from a domain?
>>> No.
>> Alejandro and I discussed this earlier in the week.
>>
>> The claim infrastructure stuff is critical for a toolstack capable of
>> doing things in parallel.
>>
>> However, it is also nonsensical for there to be a remaining claim by the
>> time domain construction is done.
> I'm not entirely sure about this. Iirc it was the tmem work where this was
> added, and then pretty certainly it was needed also for already running
> domains.
It wasn't TMEM. It was generally large-memory VMs.
The problem is if you've got 2x 2T VMs booting on a 3T system.
Previously, you'd start building both of them, and minutes later they
both fail because Xen was fully out of memory.
Claim was introduced to atomically reserve the memory you were intending
to build a domain with.
For XenServer, we're working on NUMA fixes, and something that's
important there is to be able to reserve memory on a specific NUMA node
(hence why this is all getting looked at).
>> If creation_finished were a concrete thing, rather than a bodge hacked
>> into domain_unpause_by_systemcontroller(), it ought to be made to fail
>> if there were an outstanding claim. I suggested that we follow through
>> on a previous suggestion of making it a real hypercall (which is needed
>> by the encrypted VM crowd too).
> Rather than failing we could simply zap the leftover?
Hmm. Perhaps.
I'd be slightly wary about zapping a claim, but there should only be an
outstanding claim if the toolstack did something wrong.
OTOH, we absolutely definitely do need a real hypercall here at some
point soon.
~Andrew
