On 12/16/2011 04:58 PM, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
I'm not sure this is a meaningful test to verify this change is
worthwhile, because while the shrinker tries to free a shadow page from
one vm, the vm's position in the kvm list is changed, so the over time
the shrinker will cycle over all
(2011/12/19 17:43), Avi Kivity wrote:
Well, if one guest is twice as large as other guests, then it will want
twice as many shadow pages. So our goal should be to zap pages from the
guest with the highest (shadow pages / memory) ratio.
Can you measure whether there is a significant
On 12/19/2011 11:22 AM, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
Yes, it's very conservative. But on the other hand the shrinker is
tuned for dcache and icache, where there are usually tons of useless
objects. If we have to free something, I'd rather free them instead of
mmu pages which tend to get recreated
(2011/12/19 18:26), Avi Kivity wrote:
On 12/19/2011 11:22 AM, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
Yes, it's very conservative. But on the other hand the shrinker is
tuned for dcache and icache, where there are usually tons of useless
objects. If we have to free something, I'd rather free them instead of
On 12/19/2011 11:56 AM, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
(2011/12/19 18:26), Avi Kivity wrote:
On 12/19/2011 11:22 AM, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
Yes, it's very conservative. But on the other hand the shrinker is
tuned for dcache and icache, where there are usually tons of useless
objects. If we have
(2011/12/19 19:03), Avi Kivity wrote:
IMO, The goal should be restricted to emergencies.
So possible solution may be:
- we set the tuning parameters as conservative as possible
- pick up a guest with relatively high ratio
(I have to think more how to achieve this)
- move
On 12/19/2011 12:21 PM, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
(2011/12/19 19:03), Avi Kivity wrote:
IMO, The goal should be restricted to emergencies.
So possible solution may be:
- we set the tuning parameters as conservative as possible
- pick up a guest with relatively high ratio
(I
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 07:26:47AM +0900, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
From: Takuya Yoshikawa yoshikawa.tak...@oss.ntt.co.jp
Currently, mmu_shrink() tries to free a shadow page from one kvm and
does not use nr_to_scan correctly.
This patch fixes this by making it try to free some shadow pages
On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 09:06:11 -0200
Marcelo Tosatti mtosa...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 07:26:47AM +0900, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
From: Takuya Yoshikawa yoshikawa.tak...@oss.ntt.co.jp
Currently, mmu_shrink() tries to free a shadow page from one kvm and
does not use
From: Takuya Yoshikawa yoshikawa.tak...@oss.ntt.co.jp
Currently, mmu_shrink() tries to free a shadow page from one kvm and
does not use nr_to_scan correctly.
This patch fixes this by making it try to free some shadow pages from
each kvm. The number of shadow pages each kvm frees becomes
10 matches
Mail list logo
