On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 19:15:24 -0700
Mike Waychison <[email protected]> wrote:

> In our situation, we simple disable the shrinker altogether.  My
> understanding is that we EPT or NPT, the amount of memory used by
> these tables is bounded by the size of guest physical memory, whereas
> with software shadowed tables, it is bounded by the addresses spaces
> in the guest.  This bound makes it reasonable to not do any reclaim
> and charge it as a "system overhead tax".

IIRC, KVM's mmu_shrink is mainly for protecting the host from pathological
guest without EPT or NPT.

You can see Avi's summary: -- http://www.spinics.net/lists/kvm/msg65671.html
===
We should aim for the following:
- normal operation causes very little shrinks (some are okay)
- high pressure mostly due to kvm results in kvm being shrunk (this is a
pathological case caused by a starting a guest with a huge amount of
memory, and mapping it all to /dev/zero (or ksm), and getting the guest
the create shadow mappings for all of it)
- general high pressure is shared among other caches like dcache and icache

The cost of reestablishing an mmu page can be as high as half a
millisecond of cpu time, which is the reason I want to be conservative.
===

Thanks,
        Takuya
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to