> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH kernel v5 0/5] Extend virtio-balloon for
> fast (de)inflating & fast live migration
>
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 05:40:45PM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > On 12/15/2016 05:38 PM, Li, Liang Z wrote:
> > >
> > > Use 52 bi
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 01:12:21AM +, Li, Liang Z wrote:
> > There still exist the case if the MAX_ORDER is configured to a large
> > value, e.g. 36 for a system with huge amount of memory, then there is only
> 28 bits left for the pfn, which is not enough.
>
> Not related to the balloon
On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 05:40:45PM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 12/15/2016 05:38 PM, Li, Liang Z wrote:
> >
> > Use 52 bits for 'pfn', 12 bits for 'length', when the 12 bits is not long
> > enough for the 'length'
> > Set the 'length' to a special value to indicate the "actual length in next
On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 01:12:21AM +, Li, Liang Z wrote:
> There still exist the case if the MAX_ORDER is configured to a large value,
> e.g. 36 for a system
> with huge amount of memory, then there is only 28 bits left for the pfn,
> which is not enough.
Not related to the balloon but how
> On 12/15/2016 05:38 PM, Li, Liang Z wrote:
> >
> > Use 52 bits for 'pfn', 12 bits for 'length', when the 12 bits is not long
> > enough
> for the 'length'
> > Set the 'length' to a special value to indicate the "actual length in next 8
> bytes".
> >
> > That will be much more simple. Right?
>
On 12/15/2016 05:38 PM, Li, Liang Z wrote:
>
> Use 52 bits for 'pfn', 12 bits for 'length', when the 12 bits is not long
> enough for the 'length'
> Set the 'length' to a special value to indicate the "actual length in next 8
> bytes".
>
> That will be much more simple. Right?
Sounds fine to
> On 12/15/2016 04:48 PM, Li, Liang Z wrote:
> >>> It seems we leave too many bit for the pfn, and the bits leave for
> >>> length is not enough, How about keep 45 bits for the pfn and 19 bits
> >>> for length, 45 bits for pfn can cover 57 bits physical address, that
> >>> should be
> >> enough
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 07:34:33AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > On 12/14/2016 12:59 AM, Li, Liang Z wrote:
> > >> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH kernel v5 0/5] Extend
> > >> virtio-balloon for fast (de)inflating & fast live migration
> > >>
On 12/15/2016 04:48 PM, Li, Liang Z wrote:
>>> It seems we leave too many bit for the pfn, and the bits leave for
>>> length is not enough, How about keep 45 bits for the pfn and 19 bits
>>> for length, 45 bits for pfn can cover 57 bits physical address, that should
>>> be
>> enough in the near
> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH kernel v5 0/5] Extend virtio-balloon for
> fast (de)inflating & fast live migration
>
> On 12/14/2016 12:59 AM, Li, Liang Z wrote:
> >> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH kernel v5 0/5] Extend virtio-balloon
> >> for fast (
On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 07:34:33AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 12/14/2016 12:59 AM, Li, Liang Z wrote:
> >> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH kernel v5 0/5] Extend virtio-balloon for
> >> fast (de)inflating & fast live migration
> >>
> >> On 12/08/201
On 12/14/2016 12:59 AM, Li, Liang Z wrote:
>> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH kernel v5 0/5] Extend virtio-balloon for
>> fast (de)inflating & fast live migration
>>
>> On 12/08/2016 08:45 PM, Li, Liang Z wrote:
>>> What's the conclusion of your discussion?
> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH kernel v5 0/5] Extend virtio-balloon for
> fast (de)inflating & fast live migration
>
> 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 wh
> fast (de)inflating & fast live migration
>
> Hello,
>
> On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 05:35:45AM +, 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
Hello,
On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 05:35:45AM +, 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
> 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
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
> > 1. Current patches do a hypercall for each order in the allocator.
> >This is inefficient, but independent from the underlying data
> >structure in the ABI, unless bitmaps are in play, which they aren't.
> > 2. Should we have bitmaps in the ABI, even if they are not in use by the
> >
On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 11:54:34AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> We're talking about a bunch of different stuff which is all being
> conflated. There are 3 issues here that I can see. I'll attempt to
> summarize what I think is going on:
>
> 1. Current patches do a hypercall for each order in the
We're talking about a bunch of different stuff which is all being
conflated. There are 3 issues here that I can see. I'll attempt to
summarize what I think is going on:
1. Current patches do a hypercall for each order in the allocator.
This is inefficient, but independent from the underlying
On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 10:44:31AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 12/07/2016 10:38 AM, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> >> > and leaves room for the bitmap size to be encoded as well, if we decide
> >> > we need a bitmap in the future.
> > How would a bitmap ever be useful with very large page-order?
>
Hello,
On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 08:57:01AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> It is more space-efficient. We're fitting the order into 6 bits, which
> would allows the full 2^64 address space to be represented in one entry,
Very large order is the same as very large len, 6 bits of order or 8
bytes of
On 12/07/2016 10:38 AM, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>> > and leaves room for the bitmap size to be encoded as well, if we decide
>> > we need a bitmap in the future.
> How would a bitmap ever be useful with very large page-order?
Please, guys. Read the patches. *Please*.
The current code doesn't
23 matches
Mail list logo
