Re: [RFC] Improving userfaultfd scalability for live migration

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, Dec 08, 2022, James Houghton wrote:
> - For the no-slow-GUP choice, if someone MADV_DONTNEEDed memory and we
> didn't know about it, we would get stuck in MADV_POPULATE_WRITE. By
> using UFFD_FEATURE_THREAD_ID, we can tell if we got a userfault for a
> thread that is in the middle of a MADV_POPULATE_WRITE, and we can try
> to unblock the thread by doing an extra UFFDIO_CONTINUE.
> 
> - For the PF_NO_UFFD_WAIT choice, if someone MADV_DONTNEEDed memory,
> we would just keep trying to start the vCPU without doing anything (we
> assume some other thread has UFFDIO_CONTINUEd for us). This is
> basically the same as if we were stuck in MADV_POPULATE_WRITE, and we
> can try to unblock the thread in a fashion similar to how we would in
> the other case.
> 
> So really these approaches have similar requirements for what
> userspace needs to track. So I think I prefer the no-slow-GUP approach
> then.

Are you planning on sending a patch (RFC?) for the no-slow-GUP approach?  It sounds
like there's a rough consensus that that's a viable, minimally invasive solution.



[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]

  Powered by Linux