From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1754612Ab3A2KqH (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 29 Jan 2013 05:46:07 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:24552 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1753481Ab3A2KqD (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 29 Jan 2013 05:46:03 -0500
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 12:45:14 +0200
From: Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>
To: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>,
        Petr Holasek <pholasek@redhat.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        Izik Eidus <izik.eidus@ravellosystems.com>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Anton Arapov <anton@redhat.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/11] ksm: NUMA trees and page migration
Message-ID: <20130129104513.GA15004@redhat.com>
References: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1301251747590.29196@eggly.anvils>
 <20130128155452.16882a6e.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
 <alpine.LNX.2.00.1301281701010.4947@eggly.anvils>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1301281701010.4947@eggly.anvils>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 05:07:15PM -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Jan 2013, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 17:53:10 -0800 (PST)
> > Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Here's a KSM series
> > 
> > Sanity check: do you have a feeling for how useful KSM is? 
> > Performance/space improvements for typical (or atypical) workloads? 
> > Are people using it?  Successfully?
> > 
> > IOW, is it justifying itself?
> 
> I have no idea!  To me it's simply a technical challenge - and I agree
> with your implication that that's not a good enough justification.
> 
> I've added Marcelo and Gleb and the KVM list to the Cc:
> my understanding is that it's the KVM guys who really appreciate KSM.
> 
KSM is used on all RH kvm deployments for memory overcommit. I asked
around for numbers and got the answer that it allows to squeeze anywhere
between 10% and 100% more VMs on the same machine depends on a type of
a guest OS and how similar workloads of VMs are. And management tries
to keep VMs with similar OSes/workloads on the same host to gain more
from KSM.

--
			Gleb.