[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191025132801.GK2652@e113682-lin.lund.arm.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2019 15:28:01 +0200
From: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@....com>
To: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
Cc: James Hogan <jhogan@...nel.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...abs.org>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
Julien Thierry <julien.thierry.kdev@...il.com>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, kvm-ppc@...r.kernel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/15] KVM: Dynamically size memslot arrays
On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 04:07:29PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> The end goal of this series is to dynamically size the memslot array so
> that KVM allocates memory based on the number of memslots in use, as
> opposed to unconditionally allocating memory for the maximum number of
> memslots. On x86, each memslot consumes 88 bytes, and so with 2 address
> spaces of 512 memslots, each VM consumes ~90k bytes for the memslots.
> E.g. given a VM that uses a total of 30 memslots, dynamic sizing reduces
> the memory footprint from 90k to ~2.6k bytes.
>
> The changes required to support dynamic sizing are relatively small,
> e.g. are essentially contained in patches 14/15 and 15/15. Patches 1-13
> clean up the memslot code, which has gotten quite crusty, especially
> __kvm_set_memory_region(). The clean up is likely not strictly necessary
> to switch to dynamic sizing, but I didn't have a remotely reasonable
> level of confidence in the correctness of the dynamic sizing without first
> doing the clean up.
>
> Christoffer, I added your Tested-by to the patches that I was confident
> would be fully tested based on the desription of what you tested. Let me
> know if you disagree with any of 'em.
>
The only testing I've done of patch 9 would be via the vm_free part of
kvm selftest, so not sure how valid that is, but sure.
Looks fine otherwise.
Thanks,
Christoffer
Powered by blists - more mailing lists