From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:35723)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1S2Msn-0002vw-JM
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 08:14:36 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1S2Msh-00066P-Vv
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 08:14:21 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:40602)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1S2Msh-00064H-Nv
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 08:14:15 -0500
Message-ID: <4F4CD31F.6000302@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 15:14:07 +0200
From: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1333613dbb15f2b736394d77e795223e.squirrel@ssl.dlh.net>
	<CAJSP0QXPzBHopybzkncedQjzGiakbizs3nQMc0R7s2TNqwDOew@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJSP0QXPzBHopybzkncedQjzGiakbizs3nQMc0R7s2TNqwDOew@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] linux guests and ksm performance
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/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: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Lieven <pl@dlh.net>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org

On 02/23/2012 06:42 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Peter Lieven <pl@dlh.net> wrote:
> > However, in a virtual machine I have not observed the above slow down to
> > that extend
> > while the benefit of zero after free in a virtualisation environment is
> > obvious:
> >
> > 1) zero pages can easily be merged by ksm or other technique.
> > 2) zero (dup) pages are a lot faster to transfer in case of migration.
>
> The other approach is a memory page "discard" mechanism - which
> obviously requires more code changes than zeroing freed pages.
>
> The advantage is that we don't take the brute-force and CPU intensive
> approach of zeroing pages.  It would be like a fine-grained ballooning
> feature.
>
> I hope someone will follow up saying this has already been done or
> prototyped :).

It already exists - that's the balloon code.  Right now it's host
driven, but maybe we can modify it to allow the guest to initiate
balloon inflations.

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function