From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sasha Levin Subject: Re: [RFC 01/10] KVM: reintroduce hc_gpa Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 14:32:04 +0200 Message-ID: <1338985924.3292.68.camel@lappy> References: <1338980418-2519-1-git-send-email-levinsasha928@gmail.com> <4FCF39C4.3050906@redhat.com> <1338982331.3292.61.camel@lappy> <4FCF4151.5090505@redhat.com> <1338983101.3292.66.camel@lappy> <4FCF49DF.5060004@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: mtosatti@redhat.com, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, sjenning@linux.vnet.ibm.com, dan.magenheimer@oracle.com, konrad.wilk@oracle.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org To: Avi Kivity Return-path: Received: from mail-ob0-f174.google.com ([209.85.214.174]:49171 "EHLO mail-ob0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753598Ab2FFMbD (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Jun 2012 08:31:03 -0400 Received: by obbtb18 with SMTP id tb18so10223049obb.19 for ; Wed, 06 Jun 2012 05:31:02 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4FCF49DF.5060004@redhat.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, 2012-06-06 at 15:15 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 06/06/2012 02:45 PM, Sasha Levin wrote: > > On Wed, 2012-06-06 at 14:38 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > >> On 06/06/2012 02:32 PM, Sasha Levin wrote: > >> > > >> >> and benchmark results. > >> > > >> > Is there a specific test you'd like to see? My tests were based around > >> > the "streaming test" you proposed last time this discussion came up, and > >> > runs of 'fio' in guests. > >> > >> Those are fine, thanks. > >> > >> btw, IIUC, a guest can have two tmem providers: the hypervisor and > >> zcache. How does it choose? > > > > The guest will try to use the hypervisor, unless: > > > > - 'nokvmcleancache' is passed as param - in that case cleancache will > > use the local zcache provider. > > > > - 'nokvmfrontswap' is passed as param - in that case frontswap will use > > the local zcache provider. > > The guest may have more memory than free host memory, and its memory is > certainly faster; but I'm not sure how to integrate this better. Won't the free guest memory be exhausted first by regular local caching before cleancache springs into action?