[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH v7 09/15] util/mmap-alloc: Support RAM_NORESERVE via MAP_NORE
From: |
Daniel P . Berrangé |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH v7 09/15] util/mmap-alloc: Support RAM_NORESERVE via MAP_NORESERVE under Linux |
Date: |
Tue, 4 May 2021 11:09:58 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/2.0.6 (2021-03-06) |
On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 03:37:48PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> Let's support RAM_NORESERVE via MAP_NORESERVE on Linux. The flag has no
> effect on most shared mappings - except for hugetlbfs and anonymous memory.
>
> Linux man page:
> "MAP_NORESERVE: Do not reserve swap space for this mapping. When swap
> space is reserved, one has the guarantee that it is possible to modify
> the mapping. When swap space is not reserved one might get SIGSEGV
> upon a write if no physical memory is available. See also the discussion
> of the file /proc/sys/vm/overcommit_memory in proc(5). In kernels before
> 2.6, this flag had effect only for private writable mappings."
>
> Note that the "guarantee" part is wrong with memory overcommit in Linux.
>
> Also, in Linux hugetlbfs is treated differently - we configure reservation
> of huge pages from the pool, not reservation of swap space (huge pages
> cannot be swapped).
>
> The rough behavior is [1]:
> a) !Hugetlbfs:
>
> 1) Without MAP_NORESERVE *or* with memory overcommit under Linux
> disabled ("/proc/sys/vm/overcommit_memory == 2"), the following
> accounting/reservation happens:
> For a file backed map
> SHARED or READ-only - 0 cost (the file is the map not swap)
> PRIVATE WRITABLE - size of mapping per instance
>
> For an anonymous or /dev/zero map
> SHARED - size of mapping
> PRIVATE READ-only - 0 cost (but of little use)
> PRIVATE WRITABLE - size of mapping per instance
>
> 2) With MAP_NORESERVE, no accounting/reservation happens.
>
> b) Hugetlbfs:
>
> 1) Without MAP_NORESERVE, huge pages are reserved.
>
> 2) With MAP_NORESERVE, no huge pages are reserved.
>
> Note: With "/proc/sys/vm/overcommit_memory == 0", we were already able
> to configure it for !hugetlbfs globally; this toggle now allows
> configuring it more fine-grained, not for the whole system.
>
> The target use case is virtio-mem, which dynamically exposes memory
> inside a large, sparse memory area to the VM.
Can you explain this use case in more real world terms, as I'm not
understanding what a mgmt app would actually do with this in
practice ?
Regards,
Daniel
--
|: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
- Re: [PATCH v7 09/15] util/mmap-alloc: Support RAM_NORESERVE via MAP_NORESERVE under Linux,
Daniel P . Berrangé <=