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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 04/15] KVM: Implement ring-based dirty memory tracking
To:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Cc:     Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>,
        "Dr . David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@redhat.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
References: <20191129213505.18472-1-peterx@redhat.com>
 <20191129213505.18472-5-peterx@redhat.com>
 <20191211063830-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20191211205952.GA5091@xz-x1>
 <20191211172713-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <46ceb88c-0ddd-0d9a-7128-3aa5a7d9d233@redhat.com>
 <20191212023154-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <74edef57-c1c7-53cb-4b93-291d9f816688@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 12 Dec 2019 09:12:04 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20191212023154-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 12/12/19 08:36, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 01:08:14AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>>> I'd say it won't be a big issue on locking 1/2M of host mem for a
>>>> vm...
>>>> Also note that if dirty ring is enabled, I plan to evaporate the
>>>> dirty_bitmap in the next post. The old kvm->dirty_bitmap takes
>>>> $GUEST_MEM/32K*2 mem.  E.g., for 64G guest it's 64G/32K*2=4M.  If with
>>>> dirty ring of 8 vcpus, that could be 64K*8=0.5M, which could be even
>>>> less memory used.
>>>
>>> Right - I think Avi described the bitmap in kernel memory as one of
>>> design mistakes. Why repeat that with the new design?
>>
>> Do you have a source for that?
> 
> Nope, it was a private talk.
> 
>> At least the dirty bitmap has to be
>> accessed from atomic context so it seems unlikely that it can be moved
>> to user memory.
> 
> Why is that? We could surely do it from VCPU context?

Spinlock is taken.

>> The dirty ring could use user memory indeed, but it would be much harder
>> to set up (multiple ioctls for each ring?  what to do if userspace
>> forgets one? etc.).
> 
> Why multiple ioctls? If you do like virtio packed ring you just need the
> base and the size.

You have multiple rings, so multiple invocations of one ioctl.

Paolo