[libvirt] [PATCH v1] libvirtd: Increase NL buffer size for lots of interface

[Leno Hou]

On 2015年12月17日 02:33, Laine Stump wrote:
> On 12/16/2015 10:24 AM, Michal Privoznik wrote:
>> On 10.12.2015 07:34, Leno Hou wrote:
>>> 1. When switching CPUs to offline/online in a system more than 128 cpus
>>> 2. When using virsh to destroy domain in a system with more interface
>>>
>>> All of above happens nl_recv returned with error: No buffer space 
>>> available.
>>> This patch set socket buffer size to 128K and turn on message 
>>> peeking for nl_recv,
>>> as this would solve this problem totally and permanetly.
>>>
>
>>> Signed-off-by: Leno Hou <houqy at linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>> Cc: Wenyi Gao <wenyi at linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>> ---
>>>   src/util/virnetlink.c | 8 ++++++++
>>>   1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/src/util/virnetlink.c b/src/util/virnetlink.c
>>> index 679b48e..c8c9fe0 100644
>>> --- a/src/util/virnetlink.c
>>> +++ b/src/util/virnetlink.c
>>> @@ -696,6 +696,14 @@ virNetlinkEventServiceStart(unsigned int 
>>> protocol, unsigned int groups)
>>>           goto error_server;
>>>       }
>>>   +    if (nl_socket_set_buffer_size(srv->netlinknh, 131702, 0) < 0) {
>
> The above function doesn't exist in libnl 1.1 (still used in 
> RHEL6/CentOS6, for example), so that would cause a build failure on 
> some systems. In libnl 1.1 the function is called nl_set_buffer_size().
>
> Also, how did you arrive at 128k for the default buffer size? What 
> kind of sizes are you seeing?
This buffer size is the receive socket buffer size. When I switching 
CPUs to offline/online, it's receives 107K.

>
>
>>> +        virReportSystemError(errno,
>>> +                "%s",_("cannot set netlink socket buffer size to 
>>> 128k"));
>>> +        goto error_server;
>>> +    }
>>> +
>>> +    nl_socket_enable_msg_peek(srv->netlinknh);
>>> +
>
> According to a link I followed from another message on this topic last 
> week, libnl's message peeking can't be guaranteed to always work, 
> because netlink doesn't always return the proper buffer size 
> (depending on version).
I would not use message peeking  due to I agree with you on that message 
peeking can't be guaranteed to always work.
>
>>>       if ((srv->eventwatch = virEventAddHandle(fd,
>>> VIR_EVENT_HANDLE_READABLE,
>>> virNetlinkEventCallback,
>>>
>> I believe this patch appears over and over again. Usually, the problem
>> was in libnl library we use and this was just a workaround. Can you test
>> with the latest libnl version (probably even GIT HEAD) and see if that
>> helps?
>
> I had the same memory. So I just looked back through the history of 
> bug reports about this issue, and found the following:
>
> * libnl-1.1 and libnl-3 both originally set the default message 
> buffersize to 4096 bytes, with MSG_PEEK turned off.
>
> * when this problem came up in RHEL6, it was unfortunately reported as 
> a private BZ (a pet peeve of mine), and the result of the discussion 
> about it was that libnl-1.1 (the version used in RHEL6) was patched 
> *upstream* to set the default message buffersize to 16384 bytes 
> (getpagesize() * 4), which would solve the problem for even very large 
> numbers of VFs. That was in 2013 and there have been no further 
> reports against RHEL6.
>
> * Although I had assumed the problem was solved, it again came up in 
> RHEL7 (which uses libnl-3 - a slightly different API, and maintained 
> in a separate git repo), this time in a public BZ:
>
>   https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040626
I'm not familar with this bug :-(    I think this maybe different from 
my case.

>
> I asked if perhaps the change that had been made upstream in libnl-1.1 
> hadn't also been made to libnl-3 (this is what I assumed during the 
> previous incident). It hadn't. So the same change was made for 
> libnl-3, both upstream and as a backport to RHEL7, and everyone was happy.

> I have very little detailed memory of that time (the above was all 
> recalled by looking at archives of discussions) but what had stuck in 
> my mind was "This problem has been fixed in libnl, so libvirt should 
> NOT put in "workarounds" for broken versions of libnl."
>
> But if you are using a version of libnl3 with this patch (which was in 
> libnl-3.2.22 upstream, and is in the libnl-3.2.21 that's in RHEL7.0+), :
>
> https://github.com/tgraf/libnl/commit/807fddc4cd9ecb12ba64e1b7fa26d86b6c2f19b0 
>
This patch sets *message* buffer size to 4 pages.  But I'm prefer to say 
I wanna to set *socket* buffer size to 128k

>
> then the change to quadruple the buffer size in libnl was 
> insufficient, (and also, when I looked back at the discussion now, 
> > I see that the libnl maintainer had said "The permanent fix would be 
> for libvirt to enable message peeking", so I suppose it's time to 
> "bite the bullet" and enable netlink message 
Yes, I would to set socket buffer size in libvirt because If we can set 
socket buffer size in libnl, it's can give impact on the app that do not 
need 128K socket buffer size.

> peeking in libvirt (but, since there are apparently versions of 
> netlink that don't properly inform libnl when a re-read is necessary, 
> we also need to increase the default buffer size).
>
> However, your patch is only fixing the problem in one place. There are 
> several places that we allocate netlink sockets, and they should all 
> get the same fix, implying that there should be a common function 
> called by all three. Fortunately, we already have a macro called 
> "virNetlinkAlloc" that is #defined differently depending on the libnl 
> version - this macro can simply be made into a static function that is 
> defined differently depending on libnl version. It can call 
> nl_handle_alloc or nl_socket_alloc depending on libnl version, then 
> call nl_socket_set_buffer_size/nl_set_buffer_size depending on 
> version, and finally call nl_socket_enable_msg_peek.
>
> A bit of due diligence about the default buffer size is in order 
> though - just to make sure that we don't open a ton of netlink sockets 
> at the same time, each with an unnecessarily huge buffer.
>
Does anyone has an good idea to solve this problem permanently? i.e.  
Dynamically allocate the socket buffer size accordingly. Thanks