> fast (de)inflating & fast live migration > > Hello, > > On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 05:35:45AM +0000, Li, Liang Z wrote: > > > On 12/08/2016 08:45 PM, Li, Liang Z wrote: > > > > What's the conclusion of your discussion? It seems you want some > > > > statistic before deciding whether to ripping the bitmap from the > > > > ABI, am I right? > > > > > > I think Andrea and David feel pretty strongly that we should remove > > > the bitmap, unless we have some data to support keeping it. I don't > > > feel as strongly about it, but I think their critique of it is > > > pretty valid. I think the consensus is that the bitmap needs to go. > > > > > > > Thanks for you clarification. > > > > > The only real question IMNHO is whether we should do a power-of-2 or > > > a length. But, if we have 12 bits, then the argument for doing > > > length is pretty strong. We don't need anywhere near 12 bits if doing > power-of-2. > > > > > So each item can max represent 16MB Bytes, seems not big enough, but > > enough for most case. > > Things became much more simple without the bitmap, and I like simple > > solution too. :) > > > > I will prepare the v6 and remove all the bitmap related stuffs. Thank you all! > > Sounds great! > > I suggested to check the statistics, because collecting those stats looked > simpler and quicker than removing all bitmap related stuff from the patchset. > However if you prefer to prepare a v6 without the bitmap another perhaps > more interesting way to evaluate the usefulness of the bitmap is to just run > the same benchmark and verify that there is no regression compared to the > bitmap enabled code. > > The other issue with the bitmap is, the best case for the bitmap is ever less > likely to materialize the more RAM is added to the guest. It won't regress > linearly because after all there can be some locality bias in the buddy splits, > but if sync compaction is used in the large order allocations tried before > reaching order 0, the bitmap payoff will regress close to linearly with the > increase of RAM. > > So it'd be good to check the stats or the benchmark on large guests, at least > one hundred gigabytes or so. > > Changing topic but still about the ABI features needed, so it may be relevant > for this discussion: > > 1) vNUMA locality: i.e. allowing host to specify which vNODEs to take > memory from, using alloc_pages_node in guest. So you can ask to > take X pages from vnode A, Y pages from vnode B, in one vmenter. > > 2) allowing qemu to tell the guest to stop inflating the balloon and > report a fragmentation limit being hit, when sync compaction > powered allocations fails at certain power-of-two order granularity > passed by qemu to the guest. This order constraint will be passed > by default for hugetlbfs guests with 2MB hpage size, while it can > be used optionally on THP backed guests. This option with THP > guests would allow a highlevel management software to provide a > "don't reduce guest performance" while shrinking the memory size of > the guest from the GUI. If you deselect the option, you can shrink > down to the last freeable 4k guest page, but doing so may have to > split THP in the host (you don't know for sure if they were really > THP but they could have been), and it may regress > performance. Inflating the balloon while passing a minimum > granularity "order" of the pages being zapped, will guarantee > inflating the balloon cannot decrease guest performance > instead. Plus it's needed for hugetlbfs anyway as far as I can > tell. hugetlbfs would not be host enforceable even if the idea is > not to free memory but only reduce the available memory of the > guest (not without major changes that maps a hugetlb page with 4k > ptes at least). While for a more cooperative usage of hugetlbfs > guests, it's simply not useful to inflate the balloon at anything > less than the "HPAGE_SIZE" hugetlbfs granularity. > > We also plan to use userfaultfd to make the balloon driver host enforced (will > work fine on hugetlbfs 2M and tmpfs too) but that's going to be invisible to > the ABI so it's not strictly relevant for this discussion. > > On a side note, registering userfaultfd on the ballooned range, will keep > khugepaged at bay so it won't risk to re-inflating the MADV_DONTNEED > zapped sub-THP fragments no matter the sysfs tunings. > Thanks for your elaboration! > Thanks! > Andrea _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
