From: Bob Liu <bob.liu@oracle.com>
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: Bob Liu <lliubbo@gmail.com>,
keir@xen.org, ian.campbell@citrix.com, andrew.cooper3@citrix.com,
xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] xen: free_domheap_pages: delay page scrub to tasklet
Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 16:14:52 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <537B0EFC.9070401@oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <537B1FC70200007800013ECF@mail.emea.novell.com>
On 05/20/2014 03:26 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 20.05.14 at 09:11, <bob.liu@oracle.com> wrote:
>> On 05/20/2014 02:27 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> So if you have the system scrub 1Tb at boot (via suitable
>>> dom0_mem=), how long does that take?
>>>
>>
>> I only have a 32G machine, the 1Tb bug was reported by our testing engineer.
>>
>> On 32G machine, if set dom0_mem=2G the scrub time in "(XEN) Scrubbing
>> Free RAM:" is around 12s at boot.
>>
>> The xl destroy time for a 30G guest is always around 15s even decreased
>> the rate of calling hypercall_preempt_check().
>
> Okay, so these numbers at least appear to correlate. And in fact I
> think 3Gb/s (approximated) isn't that unreasonable a number; at
> least it's not orders of magnitude away from theoretical bandwidth.
>
> Which means yes, better dealing with the load resulting from the
> post-guest-death scrubbing would be desirable, but otoh it's also
> not really unexpected for this taking minutes for huge guests. Any
> change here clearly need proper judgment between latency and
> the effect on other guests it has: As said previously, impacting all
> other guests just so that the scrubbing would get done quickly
> doesn't seem right either.
>
Yes, so I have sent out an new version mainly based on your suggestions
with title "[RFC PATCH v2] xen: free_domheap_pages: delay page scrub to
idle loop".
Pages are added to a percpu scrub list in free_domheap_pages(), and the
real scrub work is done in idle_loop(). By this way, no scrub work is
assigned to unrelated cpu which never executes free_domheap_pages().
The trade off is we can't use all cpu resources to do the scrub job in
parallel.
But at least we arrived:
1. Make xl destroy return faster, ~3s for a 30G guest.
2. Do the scrub job in idle_loop() is still faster than in
relinquish_memory(), because E.g there are some atomic instructions in
relinquish_memory() every loop.
Please take a review.
Thanks,
-Bob
prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-05-20 8:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-05-19 2:57 [RFC PATCH] xen: free_domheap_pages: delay page scrub to tasklet Bob Liu
2014-05-19 9:59 ` Andrew Cooper
2014-05-19 10:10 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2014-05-19 11:34 ` Jan Beulich
2014-05-20 2:14 ` Bob Liu
2014-05-20 6:27 ` Jan Beulich
2014-05-20 7:11 ` Bob Liu
2014-05-20 7:26 ` Jan Beulich
2014-05-20 8:14 ` Bob Liu [this message]
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=537B0EFC.9070401@oracle.com \
--to=bob.liu@oracle.com \
--cc=JBeulich@suse.com \
--cc=andrew.cooper3@citrix.com \
--cc=boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com \
--cc=ian.campbell@citrix.com \
--cc=keir@xen.org \
--cc=lliubbo@gmail.com \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.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).