[lkml]   [2009]   [Jul]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 0/4] (Take 2): transcendent memory ("tmem") for Linux
    Dan Magenheimer wrote:
    > CMM2's focus is on increasing the number of VM's that
    > can run on top of the hypervisor. To do this, it
    > depends on hints provided by Linux to surreptitiously
    > steal memory away from Linux. The stolen memory still
    > "belongs" to Linux and if Linux goes to use it but the
    > hypervisor has already given it to another Linux, the
    > hypervisor must jump through hoops to give it back.

    It depends on how you define "jump through hoops".

    > If it guesses wrong and overcommits too aggressively,
    > the hypervisor must swap some memory to a "hypervisor
    > swap disk" (which btw has some policy challenges).
    > IMHO this is more of a "mainframe" model.

    No, not at all. A guest marks a page as being "volatile", which tells
    the hypervisor it never needs to swap that page. It can discard it
    whenever it likes.

    If the guest later tries to access that page, it will get a special
    "discard fault". For a lot of types of memory, the discard fault
    handler can then restore that page transparently to the code that
    generated the discard fault.

    AFAICT, ephemeral tmem has the exact same characteristics as volatile
    CMM2 pages. The difference is that tmem introduces an API to explicitly
    manage this memory behind a copy interface whereas CMM2 uses hinting and
    a special fault handler to allow any piece of memory to be marked in
    this way.

    > In other words, CMM2, despite its name, is more of a
    > "subservient" memory management system (Linux is
    > subservient to the hypervisor) and tmem is more
    > collaborative (Linux and the hypervisor share the
    > responsibilities and the benefits/costs).

    I don't really agree with your analysis of CMM2. We can map CMM2
    operations directly to ephemeral tmem interfaces so tmem is a subset of
    CMM2, no?

    What's appealing to me about CMM2 is that it doesn't change the guest
    semantically but rather just gives the VMM more information about how
    the VMM is using it's memory. This suggests that it allows greater
    flexibility in the long term to the VMM and more importantly, provides
    an easier implementation across a wide range of guests.


    Anthony Liguori

     \ /
      Last update: 2009-07-09 23:45    [W:0.025 / U:122.968 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site