On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 4:14 AM, Avi Kivity <avi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 08/13/2010 11:10 PM, Dave Hansen wrote: >> >> On Thu, 2010-08-05 at 12:28 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: >>> >>> On 08/04/2010 10:13 AM, Lai Jiangshan wrote: >>>> >>>> mmu_shrink() should attempt to free @nr_to_scan entries. >>> >>> This conflicts with Dave's patchset. >>> >>> Dave, what's going on with those patches? They're starting to smell. >> >> These seem to fix the original problem reporter's issue. They were run >> with 64 guests on a 32GB machine. No stability problems popped up in >> this testing, or since I last sent the patches to you. The results from >> both the test with only the first four patches and with the entire set >> of nine looked pretty identical. >> >> That tells me that we should only push the first four for now: >> >> abstract kvm x86 mmu->n_free_mmu_pages >> rename x86 kvm->arch.n_alloc_mmu_pages >> replace x86 kvm n_free_mmu_pages with n_used_mmu_pages >> create aggregate kvm_total_used_mmu_pages value > > Well, patches 3 and 4 have unaddressed review comments. Please fix them up. > If you don't have the time, let me know and I'll do it instead. Dave's out on vacation now so it's probably best to assume he wont get those fixups done very quickly. Marcelo's comment on patch 3 is simple. The conversation regarding patch 4 back in June though doesn't read like it clearly concluded...I'd be happy to work something up, but if you've got strong preferences on which route to use for protecting the count maybe I should leave it to you? Tim -- 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
