Re: [External] Re: [PATCH] mm: hugetlb: support get/set_policy for hugetlb_vm_ops

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

 



On 17.10.22 11:48, 黄杰 wrote:
David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> 于2022年10月17日周一 16:44写道:

On 12.10.22 10:15, Albert Huang wrote:
From: "huangjie.albert" <huangjie.albert@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

implement these two functions so that we can set the mempolicy to
the inode of the hugetlb file. This ensures that the mempolicy of
all processes sharing this huge page file is consistent.

In some scenarios where huge pages are shared:
if we need to limit the memory usage of vm within node0, so I set qemu's
mempilciy bind to node0, but if there is a process (such as virtiofsd)
shared memory with the vm, in this case. If the page fault is triggered
by virtiofsd, the allocated memory may go to node1 which  depends on
virtiofsd.


Any VM that uses hugetlb should be preallocating memory. For example,
this is the expected default under QEMU when using huge pages.

Once preallocation does the right thing regarding NUMA policy, there is
no need to worry about it in other sub-processes.


Hi, David
thanks for your reminder

Yes, you are absolutely right, However, the pre-allocation mechanism
does solve this problem.
However, some scenarios do not like to use the pre-allocation mechanism, such as
scenarios that are sensitive to virtual machine startup time, or
scenarios that require
high memory utilization. The on-demand allocation mechanism may be better,
so the key point is to find a way support for shared policy。

Using hugetlb -- with a fixed pool size -- without preallocation is like playing with fire. Hugetlb reservation makes one believe that on-demand allocation is going to work, but there are various scenarios where that can go seriously wrong, and you can run out of huge pages.

If you're using hugetlb as memory backend for a VM without preallocation, you really have to be very careful. I can only advise against doing that.


Also: why does another process read/write *first* to a guest physical memory location before the OS running inside the VM even initialized that memory? That sounds very wrong. What am I missing?

--
Thanks,

David / dhildenb





[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux