On Monday 30 March 2009 01:23:36 Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 17:05:28 +1030
Rusty Russell ru...@rustcorp.com.au wrote:
On Saturday 28 March 2009 01:39:05 Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
Greetings,
the circus is back in town -- another version of the guest page hinting
On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 22:32:00 +1100
Nick Piggin nickpig...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
On Monday 30 March 2009 01:23:36 Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 17:05:28 +1030
Rusty Russell ru...@rustcorp.com.au wrote:
On Saturday 28 March 2009 01:39:05 Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
I still think this needs much more justification.
Ok, I can understand that. We probably need a KVM based version to show
that benefits exist on non-s390 hardware as well.
BTW, there was a presentation at the most recent Xen summit which makes
use of CMM
On Friday 03 April 2009 02:52:49 Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 22:32:00 +1100
Nick Piggin nickpig...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
On Monday 30 March 2009 01:23:36 Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 17:05:28 +1030
Rusty Russell ru...@rustcorp.com.au wrote:
On
Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
The benefits are the same but the algorithmic complexity is reduced.
The patch to the memory management has complexity in itself but from a
1000 feet standpoint guest page hinting is simpler, no?
Page hinting has a complex, but well understood, mechanism
and simple
On Friday 03 April 2009 06:06:31 Rik van Riel wrote:
Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
The benefits are the same but the algorithmic complexity is reduced.
The patch to the memory management has complexity in itself but from a
1000 feet standpoint guest page hinting is simpler, no?
Page hinting
On Thu, 2 Apr 2009, Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 22:32:00 +1100
Nick Piggin nickpig...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
I still think this needs much more justification.
Ok, I can understand that. We probably need a KVM based version to show
that benefits exist on non-s390 hardware
Rik van Riel wrote:
Page hinting has a complex, but well understood, mechanism
and simple policy.
For the guest perhaps, and yes, it does push the problem out to the
host. But that doesn't make solving a performance problem any easier if
you end up in a mess.
Ballooning has a simpler
Nick Piggin wrote:
On Friday 03 April 2009 06:06:31 Rik van Riel wrote:
Ballooning has a simpler mechanism, but relies on an
as-of-yet undiscovered policy.
Having experienced a zillion VM corner cases over the
last decade and a bit, I think I prefer a complex mechanism
over complex (or
On Wednesday 01 of April 2009, Chris Wright wrote:
* Arkadiusz Miskiewicz (a.miskiew...@gmail.com) wrote:
and this as bad commit:
7f7ace0cda64c99599c23785f8979a072e118058 is first bad commit
Does it make any difference if you roll fwd a couple commits to:
Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
The more complex host policy decisions of how to balance overall
memory use system-wide are much in the same for both mechanisms.
Not at all. Page hinting is just an optimization to host swapping, where
IO can be avoided on many of the pages that hit the end of the
Rik van Riel wrote:
Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
The more complex host policy decisions of how to balance overall
memory use system-wide are much in the same for both mechanisms.
Not at all. Page hinting is just an optimization to host swapping, where
IO can be avoided on many of the pages
On Thursday 02 April 2009, Chris Wright wrote:
* Rafael J. Wysocki (r...@sisk.pl) wrote:
Sorry for the misunderstanding, I thought the breakage might be introduced
between 15f7176eb1cccec0a332541285ee752b935c1c85 and
0a0c5168df270a50e3518e4f12bddb31f8f5f38f, so I thought it would be a good
* Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
On Thursday 02 April 2009, Chris Wright wrote:
* Rafael J. Wysocki (r...@sisk.pl) wrote:
Sorry for the misunderstanding, I thought the breakage might be introduced
between 15f7176eb1cccec0a332541285ee752b935c1c85 and
On Thursday 02 April 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
On Thursday 02 April 2009, Chris Wright wrote:
* Rafael J. Wysocki (r...@sisk.pl) wrote:
Sorry for the misunderstanding, I thought the breakage might be
introduced
between
fre, 27 03 2009 kl. 10:22 +1030, skrev Rusty Russell:
From: Matias Zabaljauregui zabaljaure...@gmail.com
Impact: cleanup
This patch allow us to use KVM hypercalls
Something has broken in relation to this change. I'm not sure it is this
change itself or one following, but I get the
On Thu, 2009-04-02 at 23:55 +0200, Simon Holm Thøgersen wrote:
fre, 27 03 2009 kl. 10:22 +1030, skrev Rusty Russell:
From: Matias Zabaljauregui zabaljaure...@gmail.com
Impact: cleanup
This patch allow us to use KVM hypercalls
Something has broken in relation to this change. I'm not
On Thursday 02 of April 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Thursday 02 April 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
On Thursday 02 April 2009, Chris Wright wrote:
* Rafael J. Wysocki (r...@sisk.pl) wrote:
Sorry for the misunderstanding, I thought the
* Arkadiusz Miskiewicz (a.miskiew...@gmail.com) wrote:
What about 9ea09af3bd3090e8349ca2899ca2011bd94cda85 ?
stop_machine: introduce stop_machine_create/destroy.
That is later fixed in a0e280e0f33f6c859a235fb69a875ed8f3420388.
Can you please verify if 2.6.29 works for you? Your bisects are
Rik van Riel wrote:
I guess we could try to figure out a simple and robust policy
for ballooning. If we can come up with a policy which nobody
can shoot holes in by just discussing it, it may be worth
implementing and benchmarking.
Maybe something based on the host passing memory pressure
20 matches
Mail list logo
