[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <F2CBF3009FA73547804AE4C663CAB28E3C32C4D5@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2016 12:39:01 +0000
From: "Li, Liang Z" <liang.z.li@...el.com>
To: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
"Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>
CC: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"mhocko@...e.com" <mhocko@...e.com>,
"mst@...hat.com" <mst@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"qemu-devel@...gnu.org" <qemu-devel@...gnu.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"dgilbert@...hat.com" <dgilbert@...hat.com>,
"pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org"
<virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: RE: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH kernel v5 0/5] Extend virtio-balloon for
fast (de)inflating & fast live migration
> 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 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 me.
> >
>
> Sounds fine to me too indeed.
>
> I'm only wondering what is the major point for compressing gpfn+len in
> 8 bytes in the common case, you already use sg_init_table to send down two
> pages, we could send three as well and avoid all math and bit shifts and ors,
> or not?
>
Yes, we can use more pages for that.
> I agree with the above because from a performance prospective I tend to
> think the above proposal will run at least theoretically faster because the
> other way is to waste double amount of CPU cache, and bit mangling in the
> encoding and the later decoding on qemu side should be faster than
> accessing an array of double size, but then I'm not sure if it's measurable
> optimization. So I'd be curious to know the exact motivation and if it is to
> reduce the CPU cache usage or if there's some other fundamental reason to
> compress it.
> The header already tells qemu how big is the array payload, couldn't we just
> add more pages if one isn't enough?
>
The original intention to compress the PFN and length it's to reduce the memory required.
Even the code was changed a lot from the previous versions, I think this is still true.
Now we allocate a specified buffer size to save the 'PFN|length', when the buffer is not big
enough to save all the page info for a specified order. A double size buffer will be allocated.
This is what we want to avoid because the allocation may fail and allocation takes some time,
for fast live migration, time is a critical factor we have to consider, more time takes means
more unnecessary pages are sent, because live migration starts before the request for unused
pages get response.
Thanks
Liang
> Thanks,
> Andrea
Powered by blists - more mailing lists