From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=46111 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PNeBP-0007lC-AY
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 23:21:05 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1PNTKH-0003se-Rk
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 11:45:10 -0500
Received: from mail-qw0-f45.google.com ([209.85.216.45]:63396)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1PNTKH-0003rt-N5
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 11:45:09 -0500
Received: by qwd7 with SMTP id 7so529528qwd.4
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 08:45:04 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4CF52A09.5080201@codemonkey.ws>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 10:44:57 -0600
From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <cover.1290552026.git.quintela@redhat.com>	<a12e21918775e0c0ae23c373be1e35060b52031b.1290552026.git.quintela@redhat.com>	<20101124104035.GB23493@redhat.com>
	<m3wro3dmdy.fsf@trasno.mitica>	<4CF46012.2060804@codemonkey.ws>
	<m3hbezvxcw.fsf@trasno.mitica>	<4CF50410.3080305@codemonkey.ws>
	<m31v62vmyu.fsf@trasno.mitica>	<20101130161032.GF20536@redhat.com>
	<m3lj4au609.fsf@trasno.mitica>
In-Reply-To: <m3lj4au609.fsf@trasno.mitica>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 02/10] Add buffered_file_internal constant
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Juan Quintela <quintela@redhat.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>

On 11/30/2010 10:32 AM, Juan Quintela wrote:
> "Michael S. Tsirkin"<mst@redhat.com>  wrote:
>    
>> On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 04:40:41PM +0100, Juan Quintela wrote:
>>      
>>> Basically our bitmap handling code is "exponential" on memory size,
>>>        
>> I didn't realize this. What makes it exponential?
>>      
> Well, 1st of all, it is "exponential" as you measure it.
>
> stalls by default are:
>
> 1-2GB: milliseconds
> 2-4GB: 100-200ms
> 4-8GB: 1s
> 64GB: 59s
> 400GB: 24m (yes, minutes)
>
> That sounds really exponential.
>    

How are you measuring stalls btw?

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

> Now the other thing is the cache size.
>
> with 64GB of RAM, we basically have a 16MB bitmap size, i.e. we blow the
> cache each time that we run ram_save_live().
>
> This is one of the reasons why I don't want to walk the bitmap on
> ram_save_remaining().
>
> ram_save_remaining() is linear with memory size (previous my changes).
> ram_save_live is also linear on the memory size, so we are in a worse
> case of n^n  (notice that this is the worst case, we normally do much
> better n^2, n^3 or so).
>
> Add to this that we are blowing the caches with big amounts of memory
> (we don't do witch smaller sizes), and you can see that our behaviour is
> clearly exponential.
>
> As I need to fix them, I will work on them today/tomorrow.
>
> Later, Juan.
>