On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:19:04PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 12:33:17PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Hmm, so this will busy wait which is unelegant.
We need some event IMO.
No, it does not busy wait. leak_balloon() is mutual exclusive with migration
steps, so
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 01:01:07PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
So, when remove_common() calls leak_balloon() looping on
vb-num_pages, that won't become a tight loop.
The scheme was apparently working before this series, and it will remain
working
after it.
It seems that before
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 09:13:39AM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 01:01:07PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
So, when remove_common() calls leak_balloon() looping on
vb-num_pages, that won't become a tight loop.
The scheme was apparently working before this series,
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 03:34:32PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
So, nothing has changed here.
Yes, your patch does change things:
leak_balloon now might return without freeing any pages.
In that case we will not be making any progress, and just
spin, pinning CPU.
That's a transitory
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 10:06:07AM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 03:34:32PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
So, nothing has changed here.
Yes, your patch does change things:
leak_balloon now might return without freeing any pages.
In that case we will not be
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 04:53:29PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 10:06:07AM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 03:34:32PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
So, nothing has changed here.
Yes, your patch does change things:
leak_balloon now
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:21:29PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 04:53:29PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 10:06:07AM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 03:34:32PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
So, nothing has changed
On 08/23/2012 11:54 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:21:29PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 04:53:29PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 10:06:07AM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 03:34:32PM +0300, Michael
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:03:15PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
Not longer - apparently forever unless user resend the leak command.
It's wrong - it should
1. not tell host if nothing was done
2. after migration finished leak and tell host
Agreed. If the balloon is told to leak N pages,
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 01:06:48PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:03:15PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
Not longer - apparently forever unless user resend the leak command.
It's wrong - it should
1. not tell host if nothing was done
2. after migration finished leak
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 04:53:28PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Basically it was very simple: we assumed page-lru was never
touched for an allocated page, so it's safe to use it for
internal book-keeping by the driver.
Now, this is not the case anymore, you add some logic in mm/ that
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 07:25:05PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 04:53:28PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Basically it was very simple: we assumed page-lru was never
touched for an allocated page, so it's safe to use it for
internal book-keeping by the driver.
On 08/23/2012 01:28 PM, Rafael Aquini wrote:
What about keep a conter at virtio_balloon structure on how much pages are
isolated from balloon's list and check it at leak time?
if the counter gets 0 than we can safely put leak_balloon() to wait until
balloon page list gets completely refilled.
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 02:28:45PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 07:25:05PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 04:53:28PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Basically it was very simple: we assumed page-lru was never
touched for an allocated page,
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 02:36:16AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 02:28:45PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 07:25:05PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 04:53:28PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Basically it was very
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 02:36:16AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
I would wake it each time after adding a page, then it
can stop waiting when it leaks enough.
But again, it's cleaner to just keep tracking all
pages, let mm hang on to them by keeping a reference.
Here is a rough idea on
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 09:33:53PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 02:36:16AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
I would wake it each time after adding a page, then it
can stop waiting when it leaks enough.
But again, it's cleaner to just keep tracking all
pages, let mm
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 09:38:48PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 09:33:53PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 02:36:16AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
I would wake it each time after adding a page, then it
can stop waiting when it leaks enough.
On 08/23/2012 07:36 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
---
virtio-balloon: replace page-lru list with page-private.
The point is to free up page-lru for use by compaction.
Warning: completely untested, will provide tested version
if we agree on this direction.
A singly linked list is not going
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 10:19:31PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 03:07:41AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 05:45:56PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 10:30:31PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 12:33:17PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Hmm, so this will busy wait which is unelegant.
We need some event IMO.
No, it does not busy wait. leak_balloon() is mutual exclusive with migration
steps, so for the case we have one racing against the other, we really want
Memory fragmentation introduced by ballooning might reduce significantly
the number of 2MB contiguous memory blocks that can be used within a guest,
thus imposing performance penalties associated with the reduced number of
transparent huge pages that could be used by the guest workload.
This
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 09:47:44AM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
Memory fragmentation introduced by ballooning might reduce significantly
the number of 2MB contiguous memory blocks that can be used within a guest,
thus imposing performance penalties associated with the reduced number of
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 04:52:23PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 09:47:44AM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
Memory fragmentation introduced by ballooning might reduce significantly
the number of 2MB contiguous memory blocks that can be used within a guest,
thus
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 05:16:06PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Tue, 2012-08-21 at 16:52 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
+ rcu_read_lock();
+ mapping = rcu_dereference(page-mapping);
+ if (mapping_balloon(mapping))
+ ret =
On Tue, 2012-08-21 at 16:52 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
+ rcu_read_lock();
+ mapping = rcu_dereference(page-mapping);
+ if (mapping_balloon(mapping))
+ ret = true;
+ rcu_read_unlock();
This looks suspicious: you
On Tue, 2012-08-21 at 09:47 -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
+ mapping = rcu_access_pointer(page-mapping);
+ if (mapping)
+ mapping = mapping-assoc_mapping;
The comment near rcu_access_pointer() explicitly says:
* Return the value of the specified RCU-protected pointer,
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 05:20:11PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Tue, 2012-08-21 at 09:47 -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
+ mapping = rcu_access_pointer(page-mapping);
+ if (mapping)
+ mapping = mapping-assoc_mapping;
The comment near rcu_access_pointer()
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 06:41:42PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 05:16:06PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Tue, 2012-08-21 at 16:52 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
+ rcu_read_lock();
+ mapping = rcu_dereference(page-mapping);
+
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 04:52:23PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
+ * address_space_operations utilized methods for ballooned pages:
+ * .migratepage- used to perform balloon's page migration (as is)
+ * .launder_page - used to isolate a page from balloon's page list
+ *
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 09:24:32AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 05:20:11PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Tue, 2012-08-21 at 09:47 -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
+ mapping = rcu_access_pointer(page-mapping);
+ if (mapping)
+ mapping =
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 02:28:20PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 09:24:32AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 05:20:11PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Tue, 2012-08-21 at 09:47 -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
+ mapping =
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 02:55:03PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 04:52:23PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
+ * address_space_operations utilized methods for ballooned pages:
+ * .migratepage- used to perform balloon's page migration (as is)
+ *
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 10:13:30PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
I believe rcu_dereference_protected() is what I want/need here, since this
code
is always called for pages which we hold locked (PG_locked bit).
It would only help if we locked the page while updating the mapping,
as
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 02:42:52PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 06:41:42PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 05:16:06PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Tue, 2012-08-21 at 16:52 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
+ rcu_read_lock();
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 04:23:58PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 10:13:30PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
I believe rcu_dereference_protected() is what I want/need here, since
this code
is always called for pages which we hold locked (PG_locked bit).
It
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 10:16:12PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 02:55:03PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 04:52:23PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
+ * address_space_operations utilized methods for ballooned pages:
+ * .migratepage
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 10:30:31PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 04:23:58PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 10:13:30PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
I believe rcu_dereference_protected() is what I want/need here, since
this code
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 04:34:39PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 10:16:12PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 02:55:03PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 04:52:23PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
+ *
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 03:07:41AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 05:45:56PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 10:30:31PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 04:23:58PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at
40 matches
Mail list logo
