On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 09:19:41PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote: > On 05/29/2013 08:39 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 11:03:19AM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote: > >>>>> the pages since other vcpus may be doing locklessly shadow > >>>>> page walking > >>> > >>> Ah, yes, i agree with you. > >>> > >>> We can introduce a list, say kvm->arch.obsolte_pages, to link all of the > >>> zapped-page, the page-shrink will free the page on that list first. > >>> > >>> Marcelo, if you do not have objection on patch 1 ~ 8 and 11, could you please > >>> let them merged first, and do add some comments and tlb optimization later? > >> > >> Exclude patch 11 please, since it depends on the "collapse" optimization. > > > > I'm fine with patch 1 being merged. I think the remaining patches need better > > understanding or explanation. The problems i see are: > > > > 1) The magic number "10" to zap before considering reschedule is > > annoying. It would be good to understand why it is needed at all. > > ...... > > > > > But then again, the testcase is measuring kvm_mmu_zap_all performance > > alone which we know is not a common operation, so perhaps there is > > no need for that minimum-pages-to-zap-before-reschedule. > > Well. Although, this is not the common operation, but this operation > can be triggered by VCPU - it one VCPU take long time on zap-all-pages, > other vcpus is missing IPI-synce, or missing IO. This is easily cause > soft lockups if the vcpu is doing memslot-releated things. > +1. If it is trigarable by a guest it may slow down the guest, but we should not allow for it to slow down a host. -- Gleb. -- 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
