From: Dave Hansen <dave@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, Dave Hansen <dave@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: [RFC][PATCH 9/9] make kvm mmu shrinker more aggressive
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 06:55:30 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100615135530.4565745D@kernel.beaverton.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100615135518.BC244431@kernel.beaverton.ibm.com>
In a previous patch, we removed the 'nr_to_scan' tracking.
It was not being used to track the number of objects
scanned, so we stopped using it entirely. Here, we
strart using it again.
The theory here is simple; if we already have the refcount
and the kvm->mmu_lock, then we should do as much work as
possible under the lock. The downside is that we're less
fair about the KVM instances from which we reclaim. Each
call to mmu_shrink() will tend to "pick on" one instance,
after which it gets moved to the end of the list and left
alone for a while.
If mmu_shrink() has already done a significant amount of
scanning, the use of 'nr_to_scan' inside shrink_kvm_mmu()
will also ensure that we do not over-reclaim when we have
already done a lot of work in this call.
In the end, this patch defines a "scan" as:
1. An attempt to acquire a refcount on a 'struct kvm'
2. freeing a kvm mmu page
This would probably be most ideal if we can expose some
of the work done by kvm_mmu_remove_some_alloc_mmu_pages()
as also counting as scanning, but I think we have churned
enough for the moment.
Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <dave@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
---
linux-2.6.git-dave/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c | 11 ++++++-----
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff -puN arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c~make-shrinker-more-aggressive arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
--- linux-2.6.git/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c~make-shrinker-more-aggressive 2010-06-14 11:30:44.000000000 -0700
+++ linux-2.6.git-dave/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c 2010-06-14 11:38:04.000000000 -0700
@@ -2935,8 +2935,10 @@ static int shrink_kvm_mmu(struct kvm *kv
idx = srcu_read_lock(&kvm->srcu);
spin_lock(&kvm->mmu_lock);
- if (kvm->arch.n_used_mmu_pages > 0)
- freed_pages = kvm_mmu_remove_some_alloc_mmu_pages(kvm);
+ while (nr_to_scan > 0 && kvm->arch.n_used_mmu_pages > 0) {
+ freed_pages += kvm_mmu_remove_some_alloc_mmu_pages(kvm);
+ nr_to_scan--;
+ }
spin_unlock(&kvm->mmu_lock);
srcu_read_unlock(&kvm->srcu, idx);
@@ -2952,7 +2954,6 @@ static int shrink_kvm_mmu(struct kvm *kv
static int mmu_shrink(int nr_to_scan, gfp_t gfp_mask)
{
int err;
- int freed;
struct kvm *kvm;
if (nr_to_scan == 0)
@@ -2989,11 +2990,11 @@ retry:
* operation itself.
*/
spin_unlock(&kvm_lock);
- freed = shrink_kvm_mmu(kvm, nr_to_scan);
+ nr_to_scan -= shrink_kvm_mmu(kvm, nr_to_scan);
kvm_put_kvm(kvm);
- if (!freed && nr_to_scan > 0)
+ if (nr_to_scan > 0)
goto retry;
out:
diff -puN arch/x86/kvm/x86.c~make-shrinker-more-aggressive arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
diff -puN arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h~make-shrinker-more-aggressive arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
_
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-06-15 13:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-06-15 13:55 [RFC][PATCH 0/9] rework KVM mmu_shrink() code Dave Hansen
2010-06-15 13:55 ` [RFC][PATCH 1/9] abstract kvm x86 mmu->n_free_mmu_pages Dave Hansen
2010-06-16 8:40 ` Avi Kivity
2010-06-15 13:55 ` [RFC][PATCH 2/9] rename x86 kvm->arch.n_alloc_mmu_pages Dave Hansen
2010-06-15 13:55 ` [RFC][PATCH 3/9] replace x86 kvm n_free_mmu_pages with n_used_mmu_pages Dave Hansen
2010-06-16 14:25 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2010-06-16 15:42 ` Dave Hansen
2010-06-15 13:55 ` [RFC][PATCH 4/9] create aggregate kvm_total_used_mmu_pages value Dave Hansen
2010-06-16 8:48 ` Avi Kivity
2010-06-16 15:06 ` Dave Hansen
2010-06-17 8:43 ` Avi Kivity
2010-06-16 16:55 ` Dave Hansen
2010-06-17 8:23 ` Avi Kivity
2010-06-15 13:55 ` [RFC][PATCH 5/9] break out some mmu_skrink() code Dave Hansen
2010-06-15 13:55 ` [RFC][PATCH 6/9] remove kvm_freed variable Dave Hansen
2010-06-15 13:55 ` [RFC][PATCH 7/9] make kvm_get_kvm() more robust Dave Hansen
2010-06-15 13:55 ` [RFC][PATCH 8/9] reduce kvm_lock hold times in mmu_skrink() Dave Hansen
2010-06-16 8:54 ` Avi Kivity
2010-06-15 13:55 ` Dave Hansen [this message]
2010-06-16 9:24 ` [RFC][PATCH 9/9] make kvm mmu shrinker more aggressive Avi Kivity
2010-06-16 15:25 ` Dave Hansen
2010-06-17 8:37 ` Avi Kivity
2010-06-18 15:49 ` Dave Hansen
2010-06-20 8:11 ` Avi Kivity
2010-06-22 16:32 ` Dave Hansen
2010-07-22 4:36 ` Avi Kivity
2010-07-22 5:36 ` Dave Hansen
2010-07-22 5:42 ` Avi Kivity
2010-06-16 8:38 ` [RFC][PATCH 0/9] rework KVM mmu_shrink() code Avi Kivity
2010-06-16 15:03 ` Dave Hansen
2010-06-17 8:40 ` Avi Kivity
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20100615135530.4565745D@kernel.beaverton.ibm.com \
--to=dave@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).