Date:   Fri, 14 Oct 2022 16:33:06 +0300
From:   Alexander Atanasov <alexander.atanasov@...tuozzo.com>
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>
Cc:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, kernel@...nvz.org,
        Linux Virtualization <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: RFC [PATCH v4 2/7] Enable balloon drivers to report inflated
 memory

On 14.10.22 16:01, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 14.10.22 14:50, Alexander Atanasov wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> On 11.10.22 12:23, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>>>>> Sounds to me that all you want is some notifier to be called from
>>>>>>> adjust_managed_page_count(). What am I missing?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Notifier will act as an accumulator to report size of change and it
>>>>>> will make things easier for the drivers and users wrt locking.
>>>>>> Notifier is similar to the memory hotplug notifier.
>>>>>
>>>>> Overall, I am not convinced that there is any value of separating the
>>>>> value
>>>>> and the notifier. You can batch both or not batch both. In addition,
>>>>> as I
>>>>> mentioned, having two values seems racy.
>>>>
>>>> I have identified two users so far above - may be more to come.
>>>> One type needs the value to adjust. Also having the value is necessary
>>>> to report it to users and oom. There are options with callbacks and so
>>>> on but it will complicate things with no real gain. You are right about
>>>> the atomicity but i guess if that's a problem for some user it could
>>>> find a way to ensure it. i am yet to find such place.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I haven't followed the whole discussion, but I just wanted to raise that
>>> having a generic mechanism to notify on such changes could be valuable.
>>>
>>> For example, virtio-mem also uses adjust_managed_page_count() and might
>>> sometimes not trigger memory hotplug notifiers when adding more memory
>>> (essentially, when it fake-adds memory part of an already added Linux
>>> memory block).
>>>
>>> What might make sense is schedule some kind of deferred notification on
>>> adjust_managed_page_count() changes. This way, we could notify without
>>> caring about locking and would naturally batch notifications.
>>>
>>> adjust_managed_page_count() users would not require changes.
>>
>> Making it deferred will bring issues for both the users of the
>> adjust_managed_page_count and the receivers of the notification -
>> locking as first. And it is hard to know when the adjustment will
>> finish, some of the drivers wait and retry in blocks. It will bring
>> complexity and it will not be possible to convert users in small steps.
> 
> What exactly is the issue about handling that deferred? Who needs an 
> immediate, 100% precise notification? >
> Locking from a separate workqueue shouldn't be too hard, or what am i 
> missing?
>

We do not need immediate but most of the current callers of 
adjust_managed_page_count work in +1/-1 updates - so we want to defer 
the notification until they are done with changes. Deferring to a wq is 
not the problem, it would need to be done most likely.


>>
>> Other problem is that there are drivers that do not use
>> adjust_managed_page_count().
> 
> Which ones? Do we care?

VMWare and Virtio balloon drivers. I recently proposed to unify them and 
the objection was that it would break existing users - which is valid so 
we must care i guess.

-- 
Regards,
Alexander Atanasov

Powered by blists - more mailing lists