> > > > > > Agree. Current balloon just send 256 PFNs a time, that's too > > > > > > few and lead to too many times of virtio transmission, that's > > > > > > the main reason for the > > > > > bad performance. > > > > > > Change the VIRTIO_BALLOON_ARRAY_PFNS_MAX to a large value > can > > > > > improve > > > > > > the performance significant. Maybe we should increase it > > > > > > before doing the further optimization, do you think so ? > > > > > > > > > > We could push it up a bit higher: 256 is 1kbyte in size, so we > > > > > can make it 3x bigger and still fit struct virtio_balloon is a > > > > > single page. But if we are going to add the bitmap variant > > > > > anyway, we probably > > > shouldn't bother. > > > > > > > > > > > > > c. address translation and madvise() operation (24%, > > > > > > > > 1423ms) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How is this split between translation and madvise? I > > > > > > > suspect it's mostly madvise since you need translation when > > > > > > > using bitmap as > > > well. > > > > > > > Correct? Could you measure this please? Also, what if we > > > > > > > use the new MADV_FREE instead? By how much would this help? > > > > > > > > > > > > > For the current balloon, address translation is needed. > > > > > > But for live migration, there is no need to do address translation. > > > > > > > > > > Well you need ram address in order to clear the dirty bit. > > > > > How would you get it without translation? > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you means that kind of address translation, yes, it need. > > > > What I want to say is, filter out the free page can be done by > > > > bitmap > > > operation. > > > > > > > > Liang > > > > > > OK so I see that your patches use block->offset in struct RAMBlock > > > to look up bits in guest-supplied bitmap. > > > I don't think that's guaranteed to work. > > > > It's part of the bitmap operation, because the latest change of the > ram_list.dirty_memory. > > Why do you think so? Could you tell me the reason? > > > > Liang > > Sorry, why do I think what? That ram_addr_t is not guaranteed to equal GPA > of the block? > I mean why do you think that's can't guaranteed to work. Yes, ram_addr_t is not guaranteed to equal GPA of the block. But I didn't use them as GPA. The code in the filter_out_guest_free_pages() in my patch just follow the style of the latest change of ram_list.dirty_memory[]. The free page bitmap got from the guest in my RFC patch has been filtered out the 'hole', so the bit N of the free page bitmap and the bit N in ram_list.dirty_memory[DIRTY_MEMORY_MIGRATION]->blocks are corresponding to the same guest page. Right? If it's true, I think I am doing the right thing? Liang > E.g. HACKING says: > Use hwaddr for guest physical addresses except pcibus_t > for PCI addresses. In addition, ram_addr_t is a QEMU internal > address > space that maps guest RAM physical addresses into an intermediate > address space that can map to host virtual address spaces. > > > -- > MST > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of > a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at > http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
