From: Gregory Price <gourry@gourry.net>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc: "Jonathan Cameron" <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org,
"Davidlohr Bueso" <dave@stgolabs.net>,
"Ira Weiny" <ira.weiny@intel.com>,
"John Groves" <John@groves.net>,
virtualization@lists.linux.dev,
"Oscar Salvador" <osalvador@suse.de>,
qemu-devel@nongnu.org, "Dave Jiang" <dave.jiang@intel.com>,
"Dan Williams" <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
linuxarm@huawei.com, wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com,
"John Groves" <jgroves@micron.com>, "Fan Ni" <fan.ni@samsung.com>,
"Navneet Singh" <navneet.singh@intel.com>,
"“Michael S. Tsirkin”" <mst@redhat.com>,
"Igor Mammedov" <imammedo@redhat.com>,
"Philippe Mathieu-Daudé" <philmd@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Virtualizing tagged disaggregated memory capacity (app specific, multi host shared)
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2024 11:06:09 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Zu07AU3aUrHBMXaw@PC2K9PVX.TheFacebook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <fc05d089-ce04-42d2-a0d7-ea32fd73fe90@redhat.com>
> > 2. Coarse grained memory increases for 'normal' memory.
> > Can use memory hot-plug. Recovery of capacity likely to only be possible on
> > VM shutdown.
>
> Is there are reason "movable" (ZONE_MOVABLE) is not an option, at least in
> some setups? If not, why?
>
This seems like a bit of a muddied conversation.
"'normal' memory" has no defined meaning - so lets clear this up a bit
There is:
* System-RAM (memory managed by kernel allocators)
* Special Purpose Memory (generally presented as DAX)
System-RAM is managed as zones - the relevant ones are
* ZONE_NORMAL allows both movable and non-movable allocations
* ZONE_MOVABLE only allows non-movable allocations
(Caveat: this generally only applies to allocation, you can
violate this with stuff like pinning)
Hotplug can be thought of as two discrete mechanisms
* Exposing capacity to the kernel (CXL DCD Transactions)
* Exposing capacity to allocators (mm/memory-hotplug.c)
1) if the intent is to primarily utilize dynamic capacity for VMs, then
the host does not need (read: should not need) to map the memory as
System-RAM in the host. The VMM should be made to consume it directly
via DAX or otherwise.
That capacity is almost by definition "Capital G Guaranteed" to be
reclaimable regardless of what the guest does. A VMM can force a guest
to let go of resources - that's its job.
2) if the intent is to provide dynamic capacity to a host as System-RAM, then
recoverability is dictated by system usage of that capacity. If onlined
into ZONE_MOVABLE, then if the system has avoided doing things like pinning
those pages it should *generally* be recoverable (but not guaranteed).
For the virtualization discussion:
Hotplug and recoverability is a non-issue. The capacity should never be
exposed to system allocators and the VMM should be made to consume special
purpose memory directly. That's on the VMM/orchestration software to get right.
For the host System-RAM discussion:
Auto-onlined hotplug capacity presently defaults to ZONE_NORMAL, but we
discussed (yesterday, at Plumbers) changing this default to ZONE_MOVABLE.
The only concern is when insufficient ZONE_NORMAL exists to support
ZONE_MOVABLE capacity - but this is unlikely to be the general scenario AND
can be mitigated w/ existing mechanisms.
Manually onlined capacity defaults to ZONE_MOVABLE.
It would be nice to make this behavior consistent, since the general opinion
appears to be that this capacity should default to ZONE_MOVABLE.
~Gregory
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-09-20 9:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-08-15 16:22 [RFC] Virtualizing tagged disaggregated memory capacity (app specific, multi host shared) Jonathan Cameron
2024-08-16 7:05 ` Hannes Reinecke
2024-08-16 9:41 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-08-19 2:12 ` John Groves
2024-08-19 15:40 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-09-17 19:56 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-09-18 12:12 ` Jonathan Cameron
[not found] ` <A4E80580-437F-46D8-A58B-D2F3851D67BD>
2024-10-22 14:11 ` Gregory Price
2024-09-19 9:09 ` David Hildenbrand
2024-09-20 9:06 ` Gregory Price [this message]
2024-10-22 9:33 ` David Hildenbrand
2024-10-22 14:24 ` Gregory Price
2024-10-22 14:35 ` David Hildenbrand
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=Zu07AU3aUrHBMXaw@PC2K9PVX.TheFacebook.com \
--to=gourry@gourry.net \
--cc=John@groves.net \
--cc=Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=dave.jiang@intel.com \
--cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=fan.ni@samsung.com \
--cc=imammedo@redhat.com \
--cc=ira.weiny@intel.com \
--cc=jgroves@micron.com \
--cc=linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linuxarm@huawei.com \
--cc=mst@redhat.com \
--cc=navneet.singh@intel.com \
--cc=osalvador@suse.de \
--cc=philmd@linaro.org \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
--cc=virtualization@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com \
/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).