From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755607AbcA1PXH (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Jan 2016 10:23:07 -0500 Received: from e33.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.151]:50693 "EHLO e33.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965255AbcA1PXE (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Jan 2016 10:23:04 -0500 X-IBM-Helo: d03dlp03.boulder.ibm.com X-IBM-MailFrom: aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com X-IBM-RcptTo: kvm@vger.kernel.org;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" To: Rik van Riel , lsf-pc@lists.linuxfoundation.org Cc: Linux Memory Management List , Linux kernel Mailing List , KVM list Subject: Re: [LSF/MM TOPIC] VM containers In-Reply-To: <56A2511F.1080900@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 20:48:35 +0530 Message-ID: <87wpqtwx4k.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <56A2511F.1080900@redhat.com> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.20.2 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.5.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 16012815-0009-0000-0000-000011D4ED6C Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Rik van Riel writes: > Hi, > > I am trying to gauge interest in discussing VM containers at the LSF/MM > summit this year. Projects like ClearLinux, Qubes, and others are all > trying to use virtual machines as better isolated containers. > > That changes some of the goals the memory management subsystem has, > from "use all the resources effectively" to "use as few resources as > necessary, in case the host needs the memory for something else". > > These VMs could be as small as running just one application, so this > goes a little further than simply trying to squeeze more virtual > machines into a system with frontswap and cleancache. > > Single-application VM sandboxes could also get their data differently, > using (partial) host filesystem passthrough, instead of a virtual > block device. This may change the relative utility of caching data > inside the guest page cache, versus freeing up that memory and > allowing the host to use it to cache things. > > Are people interested in discussing this at LSF/MM, or is it better > saved for a different forum? > I am interested in the topic. We did look at doing something similar on ppc64 and most of our focus was in reducing boot time by cutting out the overhead of guest bios (SLOF) and block layer (by using 9pfs). I would like to understand the MM challenges you have identified. -aneesh