linux-kernel - Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Persistent grant maps for xen blk drivers

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 20 Sep 2012 16:35:19 +0100
From:	"Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@...e.com>
To:	"Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk" <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
Cc:	"David Vrabel" <david.vrabel@...rix.com>,
	"Oliver Chick" <oliver.chick@...rix.com>,
	"xen-devel@...ts.xen.org" <xen-devel@...ts.xen.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Persistent grant maps for xen blk
 drivers

>>> On 20.09.12 at 15:49, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 12:48:41PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 20.09.12 at 13:30, Oliver Chick <oliver.chick@...rix.com> wrote:
>> > The memory overhead, and fallback mode points are related:
>> > -Firstly, it turns out that the overhead is actually 2.75MB, not 11MB
>> > per device. I made a mistake (pointed out by Jan) as the maximum number
>> > of requests that can fit into a single-page ring is 64, not 256.
>> > -Clearly, this still scales linearly. So the problem of memory footprint
>> > will occur with more VMs, or block devices.
>> > -Whilst 2.75MB per device is probably acceptable (?), if we start using
>> > multipage rings, then we might not want to have
>> > BLKIF_MAX_PERS_REQUESTS_PER_DEVICE==__RING_SIZE, as this will cause the
>> > memory overhead to increase. This is why I have implemented the
>> > 'fallback' mode. With a multipage ring, it seems reasonable to want the
>> > first $x$ grefs seen by blkback to be treated as persistent, and any
>> > later ones to be non-persistent. Does that seem sensible?
>> 
>> From a resource usage pov, perhaps. But this will get the guest
>> entirely unpredictable performance. Plus I don't think 11Mb of
> 
> Wouldn't it fall back to the older performance?

Right, but the guest can't really predict this. That may have
significant impact if the performance difference is big enough.

Jan

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/