Re: [PATCH] RFC: initial libxl support for xenpaging

[Olaf Hering <olaf@aepfle.de>]

On Fri, Feb 24, Ian Campbell wrote:

> Here is an updated version of my proposed interface which includes
> sharing, I think as you described (modulo the use of mem-paging-set
> where you said mem-set above).
> 
> I also included "mem-paging-set manual" as an explicit thing with an
> error on "mem-paging-set N" if you don't switch to manual mode. This
> might be too draconian -- I'm not wedded to it.
> 
> maxmem=X                        # maximum RAM the domain can ever see
> memory=M                        # current amount of RAM seen by the
> 				# domain
> paging=[off|on]                 # allow the amount of memory a guest 
>                                 # thinks it has to differ from the
>                                 # amount actually available to it (its
>                                 # "footprint")
> pagingauto=[off|on] (dflt=on)   # enable automatic enforcement of 
>                                 # "footprint" for guests which do not
>                                 # voluntarily obey changes to memory=M 
> pagingdelay=60                  # amount of time to give a guest to 
>                                 # voluntarily comply before enforcing a 
>                                 # footprint
> pagesharing=[off|on]		# cause this guest to share pages with
> 				# other similarly enabled guests where
> 				# possible. Requires paging=on.
> pageextrapolocy=...		# controls what happens to extra pages 
> 				# gain via sharing (could be combined 
> 				# with pagesharing option:
> 				#	[off|policy|...])
> 
>         Open question -- does pagesharing=on require paging=on? I've
>         tried to specify things below such that it does not, but it
>         might simplify things to require this.
> 
> xl mem-set domain M
>         Sets the amount of RAM which the guest believes it has available
>         to M. The guest should arrange to use only that much RAM and
>         return the rest to the hypervisor (e.g. by using a balloon
>         driver). If the guest does not do so then the host may use
>         technical means to enforce the guest's footprint of M. The guest
>         may suffer a performance penalty for this enforcement.
> 
>         paging off:     set balloon target to M.
>         paging on:      set balloon target to M.
>                         if pagingauto:
>                                 wait delay IFF new target < old
>                                 set paging target to M
>                                 support -t <delay> to override default?

Instead of having two now config options pagingauto= and pagingdelay=,
what about 'xl mem-set -t <seconds>' to adjust the fixed internal value
pagingdelay=? Then '-t 0' could mean pagingauto=off, which means use
both ballooning and paging to reach the "footprint" M.

>         Open question -- if a domain balloons to M as requested should
>         it still be subject to sharing? There is a performance hit
>         associated with sharing (far less than paging though?) but
>         presumably the admin would not have enabled sharing if they
>         didn't want this, therefore I think it is right for sharing on
>         to allow the guest to actually have <M assigned to it. Might be
>         a function of the individual sharing policy?
> 
> xl mem-paging-set domain manual
> 	Enables manual control of paging target.
> 
> 	paging off:	error
> 	paging on:	set pagingauto=off
> 	sharing on:	same as paging on.
> 
> xl mem-paging-set domain N
>         Overrides the amount of RAM which the guest actually has
>         available (its "footprint") to N. The host will use technical
>         means to continue to provide the illusion to the guest that it
>         has memory=M (as adjusted by mem-set). There may be a
>         performance penalty for this.
>         
>         paging off:     error

Could this be the time to start the pager and give it target N?