On 7/21/22 13:07, David Hildenbrand wrote: > This is a follow-up on "util: NUMA aware memory preallocation" [1] by > Michal. > > Setting the CPU affinity of threads from inside QEMU usually isn't > easily possible, because we don't want QEMU -- once started and running > guest code -- to be able to mess up the system. QEMU disallows relevant > syscalls using seccomp, such that any such invocation will fail. > > Especially for memory preallocation in memory backends, the CPU affinity > can significantly increase guest startup time, for example, when running > large VMs backed by huge/gigantic pages, because of NUMA effects. For > NUMA-aware preallocation, we have to set the CPU affinity, however: > > (1) Once preallocation threads are created during preallocation, management > tools cannot intercept anymore to change the affinity. These threads > are created automatically on demand. > (2) QEMU cannot easily set the CPU affinity itself. > (3) The CPU affinity derived from the NUMA bindings of the memory backend > might not necessarily be exactly the CPUs we actually want to use > (e.g., CPU-less NUMA nodes, CPUs that are pinned/used for other VMs). > > There is an easy "workaround". If we have a thread with the right CPU > affinity, we can simply create new threads on demand via that prepared > context. So, all we have to do is setup and create such a context ahead > of time, to then configure preallocation to create new threads via that > environment. > > So, let's introduce a user-creatable "thread-context" object that > essentially consists of a context thread used to create new threads. > QEMU can either try setting the CPU affinity itself ("cpu-affinity", > "node-affinity" property), or upper layers can extract the thread id > ("thread-id" property) to configure it externally. > > Make memory-backends consume a thread-context object > (via the "prealloc-context" property) and use it when preallocating to > create new threads with the desired CPU affinity. Further, to make it > easier to use, allow creation of "thread-context" objects, including > setting the CPU affinity directly from QEMU, *before* enabling the > sandbox option. > > > Quick test on a system with 2 NUMA nodes: > > Without CPU affinity: > time qemu-system-x86_64 \ > -object > memory-backend-memfd,id=md1,hugetlb=on,hugetlbsize=2M,size=64G,prealloc-threads=12,prealloc=on,host-nodes=0,policy=bind > \ > -nographic -monitor stdio > > real 0m5.383s > real 0m3.499s > real 0m5.129s > real 0m4.232s > real 0m5.220s > real 0m4.288s > real 0m3.582s > real 0m4.305s > real 0m5.421s > real 0m4.502s > > -> It heavily depends on the scheduler CPU selection > > With CPU affinity: > time qemu-system-x86_64 \ > -object thread-context,id=tc1,node-affinity=0 \ > -object > memory-backend-memfd,id=md1,hugetlb=on,hugetlbsize=2M,size=64G,prealloc-threads=12,prealloc=on,host-nodes=0,policy=bind,prealloc-context=tc1 > \ > -sandbox enable=on,resourcecontrol=deny \ > -nographic -monitor stdio > > real 0m1.959s > real 0m1.942s > real 0m1.943s > real 0m1.941s > real 0m1.948s > real 0m1.964s > real 0m1.949s > real 0m1.948s > real 0m1.941s > real 0m1.937s > > On reasonably large VMs, the speedup can be quite significant. > Really awesome work!
I am not sure I picked up this well while reading the series, but it seems to me that prealloc is still serialized on per memory-backend when solely configured by command-line right? Meaning when we start prealloc we wait until the memory-backend thread-context action is completed (per-memory-backend) even if other to-be-configured memory-backends will use a thread-context on a separate set of pinned CPUs on another node ... and wouldn't in theory "need" to wait until the former prealloc finishes? Unless as you alluded in one of the last patches: we can pass these thread-contexts with prealloc=off (and prealloc-context=NNN) while qemu is paused (-S) and have different QMP clients set prealloc=on, and thus prealloc would happen concurrently per node? We were thinking to extend it to leverage per socket bandwidth essentially to parallel this even further (we saw improvements with something like that but haven't tried this series yet). Likely this is already possible with your work and I didn't pick up on it, hence just making sure this is the case :)