Re: [PATCH v34 2/4] virtio-balloon: VIRTIO_BALLOON_F_FREE_PAGE_HINT
From: Wei Wang
Date: Wed Jun 27 2018 - 01:25:00 EST
On 06/27/2018 11:58 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 11:00:05AM +0800, Wei Wang wrote:
On 06/27/2018 10:41 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 09:24:18AM +0800, Wei Wang wrote:
On 06/26/2018 09:34 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 08:27:44PM +0800, Wei Wang wrote:
On 06/26/2018 11:56 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 11:46:35AM +0800, Wei Wang wrote:
+ if (!arrays)
+ return NULL;
+
+ for (i = 0; i < max_array_num; i++) {
So we are getting a ton of memory here just to free it up a bit later.
Why doesn't get_from_free_page_list get the pages from free list for us?
We could also avoid the 1st allocation then - just build a list
of these.
That wouldn't be a good choice for us. If we check how the regular
allocation works, there are many many things we need to consider when pages
are allocated to users.
For example, we need to take care of the nr_free
counter, we need to check the watermark and perform the related actions.
Also the folks working on arch_alloc_page to monitor page allocation
activities would get a surprise..if page allocation is allowed to work in
this way.
mm/ code is well positioned to handle all this correctly.
I'm afraid that would be a re-implementation of the alloc functions,
A re-factoring - you can share code. The main difference is locking.
and
that would be much more complex than what we have. I think your idea of
passing a list of pages is better.
Best,
Wei
How much memory is this allocating anyway?
For every 2TB memory that the guest has, we allocate 4MB.
Hmm I guess I'm missing something, I don't see it:
+ max_entries = max_free_page_blocks(ARRAY_ALLOC_ORDER);
+ entries_per_page = PAGE_SIZE / sizeof(__le64);
+ entries_per_array = entries_per_page * (1 << ARRAY_ALLOC_ORDER);
+ max_array_num = max_entries / entries_per_array +
+ !!(max_entries % entries_per_array);
Looks like you always allocate the max number?
Yes. We allocated the max number and then free what's not used.
For example, a 16TB guest, we allocate Four 4MB buffers and pass the 4
buffers to get_from_free_page_list. If it uses 3, then the remaining 1 "4MB
buffer" will end up being freed.
For today's guests, max_array_num is usually 1.
Best,
Wei
I see, it's based on total ram pages. It's reasonable but might
get out of sync if memory is onlined quickly. So you want to
detect that there's more free memory than can fit and
retry the reporting.
- AFAIK, memory hotplug isn't expected to happen during live migration
today. Hypervisors (e.g. QEMU) explicitly forbid this.
- Allocating buffers based on total ram pages already gives some
headroom for newly plugged memory if that could happen in any case.
Also, we can think about why people plug in more memory - usually
because the existing memory isn't enough, which implies that the free
page list is very likely to be close to empty.
- This method could be easily scaled if people really need more headroom
for hot-plugged memory. For example, calculation based on "X *
total_ram_pages", X could be a number passed from the hypervisor.
- This is an optimization feature, and reporting less free memory in
that rare case doesn't hurt anything.
So I think it is good to start from a fundamental implementation, which
doesn't confuse people, and complexities can be added when there is a
real need in the future.
Best,
Wei