[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <438dd41a-fdf1-2a77-ef9c-8c103f492b2f@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 11:15:23 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Liang Li <liang.z.li@...el.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Cc: virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
virtio-dev@...ts.oasis-open.org, qemu-devel@...gnu.org,
quintela@...hat.com, dgilbert@...hat.com, mst@...hat.com,
jasowang@...hat.com, kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mhocko@...e.com, pbonzini@...hat.com,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>,
Amit Shah <amit.shah@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH kernel v5 5/5] virtio-balloon: tell host vm's unused page
info
On 11/30/2016 12:43 AM, Liang Li wrote:
> +static void send_unused_pages_info(struct virtio_balloon *vb,
> + unsigned long req_id)
> +{
> + struct scatterlist sg_in;
> + unsigned long pos = 0;
> + struct virtqueue *vq = vb->req_vq;
> + struct virtio_balloon_resp_hdr *hdr = vb->resp_hdr;
> + int ret, order;
> +
> + mutex_lock(&vb->balloon_lock);
> +
> + for (order = MAX_ORDER - 1; order >= 0; order--) {
I scratched my head for a bit on this one. Why are you walking over
orders, *then* zones. I *think* you're doing it because you can
efficiently fill the bitmaps at a given order for all zones, then move
to a new bitmap. But, it would be interesting to document this.
> + pos = 0;
> + ret = get_unused_pages(vb->resp_data,
> + vb->resp_buf_size / sizeof(unsigned long),
> + order, &pos);
FWIW, get_unsued_pages() is a pretty bad name. "get" usually implies
bumping reference counts or consuming something. You're just
"recording" or "marking" them.
> + if (ret == -ENOSPC) {
> + void *new_resp_data;
> +
> + new_resp_data = kmalloc(2 * vb->resp_buf_size,
> + GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (new_resp_data) {
> + kfree(vb->resp_data);
> + vb->resp_data = new_resp_data;
> + vb->resp_buf_size *= 2;
What happens to the data in ->resp_data at this point? Doesn't this
just throw it away?
...
> +struct page_info_item {
> + __le64 start_pfn : 52; /* start pfn for the bitmap */
> + __le64 page_shift : 6; /* page shift width, in bytes */
> + __le64 bmap_len : 6; /* bitmap length, in bytes */
> +};
Is 'bmap_len' too short? a 64-byte buffer is a bit tiny. Right?
> +static int mark_unused_pages(struct zone *zone,
> + unsigned long *unused_pages, unsigned long size,
> + int order, unsigned long *pos)
> +{
> + unsigned long pfn, flags;
> + unsigned int t;
> + struct list_head *curr;
> + struct page_info_item *info;
> +
> + if (zone_is_empty(zone))
> + return 0;
> +
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&zone->lock, flags);
> +
> + if (*pos + zone->free_area[order].nr_free > size)
> + return -ENOSPC;
Urg, so this won't partially fill? So, what the nr_free pages limit
where we no longer fit in the kmalloc()'d buffer where this simply won't
work?
> + for (t = 0; t < MIGRATE_TYPES; t++) {
> + list_for_each(curr, &zone->free_area[order].free_list[t]) {
> + pfn = page_to_pfn(list_entry(curr, struct page, lru));
> + info = (struct page_info_item *)(unused_pages + *pos);
> + info->start_pfn = pfn;
> + info->page_shift = order + PAGE_SHIFT;
> + *pos += 1;
> + }
> + }
Do we need to fill in ->bmap_len here?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists