Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 11 Feb 2019 14:56:39 -0500
From:   "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Cc:     Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@gmail.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        rkrcmar@redhat.com, alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com,
        x86@kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de, hpa@zytor.com,
        pbonzini@redhat.com, tglx@linutronix.de, akpm@linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/4] kvm: Add guest side support for free memory hints
Message-ID: <20190211145531-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
References: <20190204181118.12095.38300.stgit@localhost.localdomain>
 <20190204181552.12095.46287.stgit@localhost.localdomain>
 <20190209194437-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <0d12ccec-d05f-80b8-9498-710d521c81d2@intel.com>
 <20190211124925-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <d0610465-1655-1fd0-4847-7a6ba233df85@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <d0610465-1655-1fd0-4847-7a6ba233df85@intel.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 10:19:17AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 2/11/19 9:58 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>> Really it seems we want a virtio ring so we can pass a batch of these.
> >>> E.g. 256 entries, 2M each - that's more like it.
> >> That only makes sense for a system that's doing high-frequency,
> >> discontiguous frees of 2M pages.  Right now, a 2M free/realloc cycle
> >> (THP or hugetlb) is *not* super-high frequency just because of the
> >> latency for zeroing the page.
> > Heh but with a ton of free memory, and a thread zeroing some of
> > it out in the background, will this still be the case?
> > It could be that we'll be able to find clean pages
> > at all times.
> 
> In a systems where we have some asynchrounous zeroing of memory where
> freed, non-zeroed memory is sequestered out of the allocator, yeah, that
> could make sense.
> 
> But, that's not what we have today.

Right. I wonder whether it's smart to build this assumption
into a host/guest interface though.

> >> A virtio ring seems like an overblown solution to a non-existent problem.
> > It would be nice to see some traces to help us decide one way or the other.
> 
> Yeah, agreed.  Sounds like we need some more testing to see if these
> approaches hit bottlenecks anywhere.