On 10/10/19 3:36 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 09.10.19 21:46, Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
>> On 10/9/19 12:35 PM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2019-10-09 at 11:21 -0400, Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
On 10/7/19 1:06 PM, Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
[...]
Ideally I would like to get
On 09.10.19 21:46, Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
>
> On 10/9/19 12:35 PM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>> On Wed, 2019-10-09 at 11:21 -0400, Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
>>> On 10/7/19 1:06 PM, Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
>>> [...]
> So what was the size of your guest? One thing that just occurred to me is
On 10/9/19 12:35 PM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> On Wed, 2019-10-09 at 11:21 -0400, Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
>> On 10/7/19 1:06 PM, Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
>> [...]
So what was the size of your guest? One thing that just occurred to me is
that you might be running a much smaller guest
On Wed, 2019-10-09 at 13:08 -0400, Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
> On 10/9/19 12:50 PM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> > On Wed, 2019-10-09 at 12:25 -0400, Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
> > > On 10/7/19 1:20 PM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 10:07 AM Nitesh Narayan Lal
> > > > wrote:
>
On 10/9/19 12:50 PM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> On Wed, 2019-10-09 at 12:25 -0400, Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
>> On 10/7/19 1:20 PM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 10:07 AM Nitesh Narayan Lal
>>> wrote:
On 10/7/19 12:27 PM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-10-07
On Wed, 2019-10-09 at 12:25 -0400, Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
> On 10/7/19 1:20 PM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 10:07 AM Nitesh Narayan Lal
> > wrote:
> > > On 10/7/19 12:27 PM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2019-10-07 at 12:19 -0400, Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
> > >
On Wed, 2019-10-09 at 11:21 -0400, Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
> On 10/7/19 1:06 PM, Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
> [...]
> > > So what was the size of your guest? One thing that just occurred to me is
> > > that you might be running a much smaller guest than I was.
> > I am running a 30 GB guest.
> >
On 10/7/19 1:20 PM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 10:07 AM Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
>>
>> On 10/7/19 12:27 PM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2019-10-07 at 12:19 -0400, Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
On 10/7/19 11:33 AM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-10-07 at
On 10/7/19 1:06 PM, Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
[...]
>> So what was the size of your guest? One thing that just occurred to me is
>> that you might be running a much smaller guest than I was.
> I am running a 30 GB guest.
>
If so I would have expected a much higher difference versus
On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 10:07 AM Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
>
>
> On 10/7/19 12:27 PM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> > On Mon, 2019-10-07 at 12:19 -0400, Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
> >> On 10/7/19 11:33 AM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 2019-10-07 at 08:29 -0400, Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
>
On 10/7/19 12:27 PM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-10-07 at 12:19 -0400, Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
>> On 10/7/19 11:33 AM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2019-10-07 at 08:29 -0400, Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
On 10/2/19 10:25 AM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>> [...]
You
On Mon, 2019-10-07 at 12:19 -0400, Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
> On 10/7/19 11:33 AM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> > On Mon, 2019-10-07 at 08:29 -0400, Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
> > > On 10/2/19 10:25 AM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> > >
> [...]
> > > You don't have to, I can fix the issues in my
On 10/7/19 11:33 AM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-10-07 at 08:29 -0400, Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
>> On 10/2/19 10:25 AM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>>
[...]
>> You don't have to, I can fix the issues in my patch-set. :)
>>> Sounds good. Hopefully the stuff I pointed out above helps you to
On Mon, 2019-10-07 at 08:29 -0400, Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
> On 10/2/19 10:25 AM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>
> [...]
> > > > My suggestion would be to look at reworking the patch set and
> > > > post numbers for my patch set versus the bitmap approach and we can
> > > > look at them then.
> > >
On 10/2/19 10:25 AM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
[...]
>>> My suggestion would be to look at reworking the patch set and
>>> post numbers for my patch set versus the bitmap approach and we can
>>> look at them then.
>> Agreed. However, in order to fix an issue I have to reproduce it first.
> With the
On 10/1/19 4:51 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 10/1/19 1:49 PM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>> So it looks like v12 still has issues. I'm pretty sure you should be using
>> spin_lock_irq(), not spin_lock() in page_reporting.c to avoid the
>> possibility of an IRQ firing and causing lock recursion on the
On 10/1/19 4:25 PM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> On Tue, 2019-10-01 at 15:16 -0400, Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
>> On 10/1/19 12:21 PM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2019-10-01 at 17:35 +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 01.10.19 17:29, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>
>
> As far as possible
On 10/2/19 10:25 AM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 3:37 AM Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
>>
>> On 10/1/19 8:55 PM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 12:16 PM Nitesh Narayan Lal
>>> wrote:
On 10/1/19 12:21 PM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> On Tue, 2019-10-01
On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 3:37 AM Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
>
>
> On 10/1/19 8:55 PM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 12:16 PM Nitesh Narayan Lal
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On 10/1/19 12:21 PM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 2019-10-01 at 17:35 +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>
On 10/2/19 3:13 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 02.10.19 02:55, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 12:16 PM Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/1/19 12:21 PM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
On Tue, 2019-10-01 at 17:35 +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 01.10.19 17:29,
On 10/1/19 8:55 PM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 12:16 PM Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
>>
>> On 10/1/19 12:21 PM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2019-10-01 at 17:35 +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 01.10.19 17:29, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> This series provides an
On 02.10.19 02:55, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 12:16 PM Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/1/19 12:21 PM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2019-10-01 at 17:35 +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 01.10.19 17:29, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> This series provides an
On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 12:16 PM Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
>
>
> On 10/1/19 12:21 PM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> > On Tue, 2019-10-01 at 17:35 +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >> On 01.10.19 17:29, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> >>> This series provides an asynchronous means of reporting to a hypervisor
On 10/1/19 1:49 PM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> So it looks like v12 still has issues. I'm pretty sure you should be using
> spin_lock_irq(), not spin_lock() in page_reporting.c to avoid the
> possibility of an IRQ firing and causing lock recursion on the zone lock.
Lockdep should make all of this a
On Tue, 2019-10-01 at 13:25 -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> On Tue, 2019-10-01 at 15:16 -0400, Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
> > On 10/1/19 12:21 PM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2019-10-01 at 17:35 +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > > On 01.10.19 17:29, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>
>
>
> >
On Tue, 2019-10-01 at 15:16 -0400, Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
> On 10/1/19 12:21 PM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> > On Tue, 2019-10-01 at 17:35 +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > On 01.10.19 17:29, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> > > >
> > > > As far as possible regressions I have focused on cases
On 10/1/19 2:41 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> I think Michal asked for a performance comparison against Nitesh's
>>> approach, to evaluate if keeping the reported state + tracking inside
>>> the buddy is really worth it. Do you have any such numbers already? (or
>>> did my tired eyes miss
On 10/1/19 12:21 PM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> On Tue, 2019-10-01 at 17:35 +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 01.10.19 17:29, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>>> This series provides an asynchronous means of reporting to a hypervisor
>>> that a guest page is no longer in use and can have the data
On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 09:21:46AM -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> I thought what Michal was asking for was what was the benefit of using the
> boundary pointer. I added a bit up above and to the description for patch
> 3 as on a 32G VM it adds up to about a 18% difference without factoring in
>
>> I think Michal asked for a performance comparison against Nitesh's
>> approach, to evaluate if keeping the reported state + tracking inside
>> the buddy is really worth it. Do you have any such numbers already? (or
>> did my tired eyes miss them in this cover letter? :/)
>>
>
> I thought what
On Tue, 2019-10-01 at 17:35 +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 01.10.19 17:29, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> > This series provides an asynchronous means of reporting to a hypervisor
> > that a guest page is no longer in use and can have the data associated
> > with it dropped. To do this I have
On 01.10.19 17:29, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> This series provides an asynchronous means of reporting to a hypervisor
> that a guest page is no longer in use and can have the data associated
> with it dropped. To do this I have implemented functionality that allows
> for what I am referring to as
This series provides an asynchronous means of reporting to a hypervisor
that a guest page is no longer in use and can have the data associated
with it dropped. To do this I have implemented functionality that allows
for what I am referring to as unused page reporting. The advantage of
unused page
33 matches
Mail list logo
