From: Ryan Harper <ryanh@us.ibm.com>
To: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
Cc: Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>,
kvm@vger.kernel.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org,
Ryan Harper <ryanh@us.ibm.com>,
Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>, Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 4/4] Reallocate dma buffers in read/write path if needed
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 18:06:56 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20081005230656.GI31395@us.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <48E7ECC1.90008@codemonkey.ws>
* Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws> [2008-10-04 17:28]:
> Ryan Harper wrote:
> >I'd rather avoid any additional accounting overhead of a pool. If 4MB
> >is a reasonable limit, lets make that the new max. I can do some
> >testing to see where we drop off on performance improvements. We'd
> >have a default buffer size (smaller than the previous 64, and now 128k
> >buf size) that is used when we allocate scsi requests; scanning through
> >send_command() provides a good idea of other scsi command buf usage; and
> >on reads and writes, keep the capping logic we've had all along, but
> >bump the max size up to something like 4MB -- or whatever tests results
> >show as being ideal.
> >
> >In all, it seems silly to worry about this sort of thing since the
> >entire process could be contained with process ulimits if this is really
> >a concern. Are we any more concerned that by splitting the requests
> >into many smaller requests that we're wasting cpu, pegging the
> >processor to 100% in some cases?
> >
>
> There are two concerns with allowing the guest to alloc arbitrary
> amounts of memory. The first is that QEMU is not written in such a way
> to be robust in the face of out-of-memory conditions so if we run out of
> VA space, an important malloc could fail and we'd fall over.
That is an understandable concern and I don't want to make matters
worse, even if the instability already exists in the code as-is. I think
I'd like to see this fail in practice before I'm really concerned. For
64-bit builds, is the VA space an issue?
>
> The second concern is that if a guest can allocate arbitrary amounts of
> memory, it could generate a swap storm. Unfortunately, AFAIK, Linux is
> not yet to a point where it can deal with swap fairness. Hopefully this
> is a limitation that the IO controller folks are taking into account.
Sure, but as I mentioned, the amount of memory it can allocate can
surely be controlled by the host system per-process ulimit no?
--
Ryan Harper
Software Engineer; Linux Technology Center
IBM Corp., Austin, Tx
(512) 838-9253 T/L: 678-9253
ryanh@us.ibm.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-10-05 23:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-10-03 22:05 [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/4] Improve emulated scsi write performance Ryan Harper
2008-10-03 22:05 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/4] lsi_queue_command: add dma direction parameter Ryan Harper
2008-10-03 22:05 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/4] Refactor lsi_do_command to queue read and write ops Ryan Harper
2008-10-03 22:05 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 3/4] Refactor scsi-disk layer for queue'ing writes Ryan Harper
2008-10-03 22:05 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 4/4] Reallocate dma buffers in read/write path if needed Ryan Harper
2008-10-03 23:17 ` Paul Brook
2008-10-03 23:35 ` Anthony Liguori
2008-10-04 0:00 ` Paul Brook
2008-10-04 10:00 ` Avi Kivity
[not found] ` <20081004135749.pphehrhuw9w4gwsc@imap.linux.ibm.com>
2008-10-04 21:47 ` Ryan Harper
2008-10-04 22:22 ` Anthony Liguori
2008-10-05 5:23 ` Avi Kivity
2008-10-05 23:06 ` Ryan Harper [this message]
2008-10-06 7:27 ` Avi Kivity
2008-10-04 23:00 ` Paul Brook
2008-10-05 5:29 ` Avi Kivity
2008-10-05 23:08 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/4] Improve emulated scsi write performance Ryan Harper
2008-10-13 16:15 ` Ryan Harper
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=20081005230656.GI31395@us.ibm.com \
--to=ryanh@us.ibm.com \
--cc=aliguori@us.ibm.com \
--cc=anthony@codemonkey.ws \
--cc=avi@redhat.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paul@codesourcery.com \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.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).