From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from serv2.oss.ntt.co.jp (serv2.oss.ntt.co.jp [222.151.198.100]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CA65B7D59 for ; Mon, 17 May 2010 19:02:33 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <4BF1070B.4000507@oss.ntt.co.jp> Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 18:06:19 +0900 From: Takuya Yoshikawa MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/12] KVM, x86, ppc, asm-generic: moving dirty bitmaps to user space References: <20100504215645.6448af8f.takuya.yoshikawa@gmail.com> <4BE7F6D7.3060005@redhat.com> <4BE7FB7B.5010600@oss.ntt.co.jp> <4BEBE6D0.8020000@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4BEBE6D0.8020000@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, arnd@arndb.de, kvm@vger.kernel.org, kvm-ia64@vger.kernel.org, fernando@oss.ntt.co.jp, mtosatti@redhat.com, agraf@suse.de, kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Takuya Yoshikawa List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > User allocated bitmaps have the advantage of reducing pinned memory. > However we have plenty more pinned memory allocated in memory slots, so > by itself, user allocated bitmaps don't justify this change. In that sense, what do you think about the question I sent last week? === REPOST 1 === >> >> mark_page_dirty is called with the mmu_lock spinlock held in set_spte. >> Must find a way to move it outside of the spinlock section. >> > > Oh, it's a serious problem. I have to consider it. Avi, Marcelo, Sorry but I have to say that mmu_lock spin_lock problem was completely out of my mind. Although I looked through the code, it seems not easy to move the set_bit_user to outside of spinlock section without breaking the semantics of its protection. So this may take some time to solve. But personally, I want to do something for x86's "vmallc() every time" problem even though moving dirty bitmaps to user space cannot be achieved soon. In that sense, do you mind if we do double buffering without moving dirty bitmaps to user space? I know that the resource for vmalloc() is precious for x86 but even now, at the timing of get_dirty_log, we use the same amount of memory as double buffering. === 1 END === > > Perhaps if we optimize memory slot write protection (I have some ideas > about this) we can make the performance improvement more pronounced. > It's really nice! Even now we can measure the performance improvement by introducing switch ioctl when guest is relatively idle, so the combination will be really effective! === REPOST 2 === >> >> Can you post such a test, for an idle large guest? > > OK, I'll do! Result of "low workload test" (running top during migration) first, 4GB guest picked up slots[1](len=3757047808) only ***************************************** get.org get.opt switch.opt 1060875 310292 190335 1076754 301295 188600 655504 318284 196029 529769 301471 325 694796 70216 221172 651868 353073 196184 543339 312865 213236 1061938 72785 203090 689527 323901 249519 621364 323881 473 1063671 70703 192958 915903 336318 174008 1046462 332384 782 1037942 72783 190655 680122 318305 243544 688156 314935 193526 558658 265934 190550 652454 372135 196270 660140 68613 352 1101947 378642 186575 ... ... ... ***************************************** As expected we've got the difference more clearly. In this case, switch.opt reduced 1/3 (.1 msec) compared to get.opt for each iteration. And when the slot is cleaner, the ratio is bigger. === 2 END ===