Am 18.03.2024 um 19:34 hat Stefan Hajnoczi geschrieben:
> The coroutine pool implementation can hit the Linux vm.max_map_count
> limit, causing QEMU to abort with "failed to allocate memory for stack"
> or "failed to set up stack guard page" during coroutine creation.
>
> This happens because per-thread pools can grow to tens of thousands of
> coroutines. Each coroutine causes 2 virtual memory areas to be created.
> Eventually vm.max_map_count is reached and memory-related syscalls fail.
> The per-thread pool sizes are non-uniform and depend on past coroutine
> usage in each thread, so it's possible for one thread to have a large
> pool while another thread's pool is empty.
>
> Switch to a new coroutine pool implementation with a global pool that
> grows to a maximum number of coroutines and per-thread local pools that
> are capped at hardcoded small number of coroutines.
>
> This approach does not leave large numbers of coroutines pooled in a
> thread that may not use them again. In order to perform well it
> amortizes the cost of global pool accesses by working in batches of
> coroutines instead of individual coroutines.
>
> The global pool is a list. Threads donate batches of coroutines to when
> they have too many and take batches from when they have too few:
>
> .-----------------------------------.
> | Batch 1 | Batch 2 | Batch 3 | ... | global_pool
> `-----------------------------------'
>
> Each thread has up to 2 batches of coroutines:
>
> .-------------------.
> | Batch 1 | Batch 2 | per-thread local_pool (maximum 2 batches)
> `-------------------'
>
> The goal of this change is to reduce the excessive number of pooled
> coroutines that cause QEMU to abort when vm.max_map_count is reached
> without losing the performance of an adequately sized coroutine pool.
>
> Here are virtio-blk disk I/O benchmark results:
>
> RW BLKSIZE IODEPTH OLD NEW CHANGE
> randread 4k 1 113725 117451 +3.3%
> randread 4k 8 192968 198510 +2.9%
> randread 4k 16 207138 209429 +1.1%
> randread 4k 32 212399 215145 +1.3%
> randread 4k 64 218319 221277 +1.4%
> randread 128k 1 17587 17535 -0.3%
> randread 128k 8 17614 17616 +0.0%
> randread 128k 16 17608 17609 +0.0%
> randread 128k 32 17552 17553 +0.0%
> randread 128k 64 17484 17484 +0.0%
>
> See files/{fio.sh,test.xml.j2} for the benchmark configuration:
> https://gitlab.com/stefanha/virt-playbooks/-/tree/coroutine-pool-fix-sizing
>
> Buglink: https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHEL-28947
> Reported-by: Sanjay Rao <s...@redhat.com>
> Reported-by: Boaz Ben Shabat <bbens...@redhat.com>
> Reported-by: Joe Mario <jma...@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefa...@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf <kw...@redhat.com>
Though I do wonder if we can do something about the slight performance
degradation that Sanjay reported. We seem to stay well under the hard
limit, so the reduced global pool size shouldn't be the issue. Maybe
it's the locking?
Either way, even though it could be called a fix, I don't think this is
for 9.0, right?
Kevin
