> > > > > > I'm just catching back up on this thread; so without > > > > > > reference to any particular previous mail in the thread. > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) How many of the free pages do we tell the host about? > > > > > > Your main change is telling the host about all the > > > > > > free pages. > > > > > > > > > > Yes, all the guest's free pages. > > > > > > > > > > > If we tell the host about all the free pages, then we might > > > > > > end up needing to allocate more pages and update the host > > > > > > with pages we now want to use; that would have to wait for the > > > > > > host to acknowledge that use of these pages, since if we don't > > > > > > wait for it then it might have skipped migrating a page we > > > > > > just started using (I don't understand how your series solves that). > > > > > > So the guest probably needs to keep some free pages - how > many? > > > > > > > > > > Actually, there is no need to care about whether the free pages > > > > > will be > > > used by the host. > > > > > We only care about some of the free pages we get reused by the > > > > > guest, > > > right? > > > > > > > > > > The dirty page logging can be used to solve this, starting the > > > > > dirty page logging before getting the free pages informant from guest. > > > > > Even some of the free pages are modified by the guest during the > > > > > process of getting the free pages information, these modified > > > > > pages will > > > be traced by the dirty page logging mechanism. So in the following > > > migration_bitmap_sync() function. > > > > > The pages in the free pages bitmap, but latter was modified, > > > > > will be reset to dirty. We won't omit any dirtied pages. > > > > > > > > > > So, guest doesn't need to keep any free pages. > > > > > > > > OK, yes, that works; so we do: > > > > * enable dirty logging > > > > * ask guest for free pages > > > > * initialise the migration bitmap as everything-free > > > > * then later we do the normal sync-dirty bitmap stuff and it all just > works. > > > > > > > > That's nice and simple. > > > > > > This works once, sure. But there's an issue is that you have to > > > defer migration until you get the free page list, and this only > > > works once. So you end up with heuristics about how long to wait. > > > > > > Instead I propose: > > > > > > - mark all pages dirty as we do now. > > > > > > - at start of migration, start tracking dirty > > > pages in kvm, and tell guest to start tracking free pages > > > > > > we can now introduce any kind of delay, for example wait for ack > > > from guest, or do whatever else, or even just start migrating pages > > > > > > - repeatedly: > > > - get list of free pages from guest > > > - clear them in migration bitmap > > > - get dirty list from kvm > > > > > > - at end of migration, stop tracking writes in kvm, > > > and tell guest to stop tracking free pages > > > > I had thought of filtering out the free pages in each migration bitmap > synchronization. > > The advantage is we can skip process as many free pages as possible. Not > just once. > > The disadvantage is that we should change the current memory > > management code to track the free pages, instead of traversing the free > page list to construct the free pages bitmap, to reduce the overhead to get > the free pages bitmap. > > I am not sure the if the Kernel people would like it. > > > > If keeping the traversing mechanism, because of the overhead, maybe it's > not worth to filter out the free pages repeatedly. > > Well, Michael's idea of not waiting for the dirty bitmap to be filled does make > that idea of constnatly using the free-bitmap better. > No wait is a good idea. Actually, we could shorten the waiting time by pre allocating the free pages bit map and update it when guest allocating/freeing pages. it requires to modify the mm related code. I don't know whether the kernel people like this. > In that case, is it easier if something (guest/host?) allocates some memory in > the guests physical RAM space and just points the host to it, rather than > having an explicit 'send'. > Good idea too. Liang > Dave _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
