On 15.05.20 19:51, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: > * David Hildenbrand (david@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote: >> On 15.05.20 14:45, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: >>> * David Hildenbrand (david@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote: >>>> RDMA will pin all guest memory (as documented in docs/rdma.txt). We want >>>> to mark RAM block discards to be broken - however, to keep it simple >>>> use ram_block_discard_is_required() instead of inhibiting. >>> >>> Should this be dependent on whether rdma->pin_all is set? >>> Even with !pin_all some will be pinned at any given time >>> (when it's registered with the rdma stack). >> >> Do you know how much memory this is? Is such memory only temporarily pinned? > > With pin_all not set, only a subset of memory, I think multiple 1MB > chunks, are pinned at any one time. > >> At least with special-cases of vfio, it's acceptable if some memory is >> temporarily pinned - we assume it's only the working set of the driver, >> which guests will not inflate as long as they don't want to shoot >> themselves in the foot. >> >> This here sounds like the guest does not know the pinned memory is >> special, right? > > Right - for RDMA it's all of memory that's being transferred, and the > guest doesn't see when each part is transferred. Okay, so all memory will eventually be pinned, just not at the same time, correct? I think this implies that any memory that was previously discarded will be backed my new pages, meaning we will consume more memory than intended. If so, always disabling discarding of RAM seems to be the right thing to do. -- Thanks, David / dhildenb
