On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 03:01:37PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 14:28:51 +0300, "Michael S. Tsirkin"
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 12:16:51PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > I was thinking of exactly that page->mapping == balloon_mapping check. As
> > > I
> > > do not
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 14:28:51 +0300, "Michael S. Tsirkin"
wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 12:16:51PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > I was thinking of exactly that page->mapping == balloon_mapping check. As I
> > do not know how many active balloon drivers there might be I cannot guess
> > in advanc
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 11:59:11AM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 17:40:19 +0300, "Michael S. Tsirkin"
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 09:34:58AM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:31:09PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > > now CPU1 exec
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 17:40:19 +0300, "Michael S. Tsirkin"
wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 09:34:58AM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:31:09PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > now CPU1 executes the next instruction:
> > > > >
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > wh
On 08/14/2012 05:38 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
And even ignoring that, global pointer to a device
is an ugly hack and ugly hacks tend to explode.
And even ignoring estetics, and if we decide we are fine
with a single balloon, it needs to fail gracefully not
crash like it does now.
Fair eno
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 09:34:58AM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:31:09PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > now CPU1 executes the next instruction:
> > > >
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > which would normally return to function's caller,
> > > > but it has been overwrit
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:31:09PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > now CPU1 executes the next instruction:
> > >
> > > }
> > >
> > > which would normally return to function's caller,
> > > but it has been overwritten by CPU2 so we get corruption.
> > >
> > > No?
> >
> > At the point CPU2
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 12:16:51PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 01:01:08PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 10:48:39AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 12:25:28PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 01:01:08PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 10:48:39AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 12:25:28PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 10:05:28AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 10:48:39AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 12:25:28PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 10:05:28AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:11:13PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:5
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 12:25:28PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 10:05:28AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:11:13PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:51:39PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > What I think you sho
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 10:05:28AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:11:13PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:51:39PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > What I think you should do is use rcu for access.
> > > And here sync rcu before freeing.
> > >
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:11:13PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:51:39PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > What I think you should do is use rcu for access.
> > And here sync rcu before freeing.
> > Maybe an overkill but at least a documented synchronization
> > primit
On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 11:33:20 +0300, "Michael S. Tsirkin"
wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 09:29:49AM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 11:41:23 +0300, "Michael S. Tsirkin"
> > wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 02:55:15PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> > > > +/*
> > > > + * P
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 06:34:13PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 11:49:06PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:29:50PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 11:24:01PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 04:56:59PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On 08/14/2012 04:54 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
> >To clarify, the global state that this patch adds, is ugly
> >even if we didn't support multiple balloons yet.
> >So I don't think I can accept such a patch.
> >Rusty has a final
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 11:49:06PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:29:50PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 11:24:01PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:08:31PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2
On 08/14/2012 04:54 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
To clarify, the global state that this patch adds, is ugly
even if we didn't support multiple balloons yet.
So I don't think I can accept such a patch.
Rusty has a final word here, maybe he thinks differently.
Before deciding that "does not sup
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 11:49:06PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:29:50PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 11:24:01PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:08:31PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:29:50PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 11:24:01PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:08:31PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:59:16PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > > > What if the
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:11:13PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:51:39PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > What I think you should do is use rcu for access.
> > And here sync rcu before freeing.
> > Maybe an overkill but at least a documented synchronization
> > primit
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 11:24:01PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:08:31PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:59:16PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > > What if there is more than one balloon device?
> > > > >
> > > > > Is it possible
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:08:31PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:59:16PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > What if there is more than one balloon device?
> > > >
> > > > Is it possible to load this driver twice, or are you foreseeing a
> > > > future case
> > >
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:51:39PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> What I think you should do is use rcu for access.
> And here sync rcu before freeing.
> Maybe an overkill but at least a documented synchronization
> primitive, and it is very light weight.
>
I liked your suggestion on barriers
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:59:16PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > What if there is more than one balloon device?
> > >
> > > Is it possible to load this driver twice, or are you foreseeing a future
> > > case
> > > where this driver will be able to manage several distinct memory balloon
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:51:39PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 03:22:45PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 11:41:23AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > @@ -141,7 +151,10 @@ static void fill_balloon(struct virtio_balloon
> > > > *vb, size
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 03:22:45PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 11:41:23AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > @@ -141,7 +151,10 @@ static void fill_balloon(struct virtio_balloon *vb,
> > > size_t num)
> > > set_page_pfns(vb->pfns + vb->num_pfns, page);
> > >
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 03:44:09PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 11:33:20AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 09:29:49AM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > > On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 11:41:23 +0300, "Michael S. Tsirkin"
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Aug 1
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 11:33:20AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 09:29:49AM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 11:41:23 +0300, "Michael S. Tsirkin"
> > wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 02:55:15PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> > > > +/*
> > > > + *
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 11:41:23AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > @@ -141,7 +151,10 @@ static void fill_balloon(struct virtio_balloon *vb,
> > size_t num)
> > set_page_pfns(vb->pfns + vb->num_pfns, page);
> > vb->num_pages += VIRTIO_BALLOON_PAGES_PER_PAGE;
> >
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 09:29:49AM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 11:41:23 +0300, "Michael S. Tsirkin"
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 02:55:15PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> > > +/*
> > > + * Populate balloon_mapping->a_ops->freepage method to help compaction on
> > > +
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 11:41:23 +0300, "Michael S. Tsirkin"
wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 02:55:15PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> > +/*
> > + * Populate balloon_mapping->a_ops->freepage method to help compaction on
> > + * re-inserting an isolated page into the balloon page list.
> > + */
> > +v
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 02:55:15PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> Memory fragmentation introduced by ballooning might reduce significantly
> the number of 2MB contiguous memory blocks that can be used within a guest,
> thus imposing performance penalties associated with the reduced number of
> trans
Memory fragmentation introduced by ballooning might reduce significantly
the number of 2MB contiguous memory blocks that can be used within a guest,
thus imposing performance penalties associated with the reduced number of
transparent huge pages that could be used by the guest workload.
Besides ma
34 matches
Mail list logo
