Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 18:35:13 +0300
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, aquini@redhat.com,
        amit.shah@redhat.com, anton@enomsg.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 2/2] virtio_balloon: auto-ballooning support
Message-ID: <20130513153513.GA4981@redhat.com>
References: <1368111229-29847-1-git-send-email-lcapitulino@redhat.com>
 <1368111229-29847-3-git-send-email-lcapitulino@redhat.com>
 <20130512143054.GI10144@redhat.com>
 <518FC4F9.5010505@redhat.com>
 <20130512184934.GA16334@redhat.com>
 <20130513110303.33dbaba6@redhat.com>
 <20130513151624.GB1992@redhat.com>
 <51910552.5050507@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <51910552.5050507@redhat.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2061
Lines: 56

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 11:22:58AM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On 05/13/2013 11:16 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> 
> >However, there's a big question mark: host specifies
> >inflate, guest says deflate, who wins?
> 
> If we're dealing with a NUMA guest, they could both win :)
> 
> The host could see reduced memory use of the guest in one
> place, while the guest could see increased memory availability
> in another place...
> 
> I also suspect that having some "churn" could help sort out
> exactly what the working set is.
> 
> >At some point Google sent patches that gave guest
> >complete control over the balloon.
> >This has the advantage that management isn't involved.
> 
> I believe the Google patches still included some way for the
> host to initiate balloon inflation on the guest side, because
> the guest internal state alone is not enough to see when the
> host is under memory pressure.
> 
> I discussed the project with the Google developers in question
> a little over a year ago, but I do not remember whether their
> pressure notification went through qemu, or directly from the
> host kernel to the guest kernel...

So increasing the max number of pages in balloon
indicates host memory pressure to the guest?
Fair enough but I wonder whether there's a way to
make it more explicit in the interface, somehow.


> >And at some level it seems to make sense: why set
> >an upper limit on size of the balloon?
> >The bigger it is, the better.
> 
> Response time.
> 
> If too much of a guest's memory has been removed, it can take
> too long for the guest to react to user requests, be it over
> the web or ssh or something else...

Absolutely. But it's a Guest issue. Host does not care.
If Guest wants to shoot itself in the foot it has
many other ways to do this.

> -- 
> All rights reversed
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/