From: Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@oracle.com>
To: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, Grzegorz Milos <gm281@cam.ac.uk>,
Patrick Colp <pjcolp@cs.ubc.ca>,
Andrew Peace <Andrew.Peace@eu.citrix.com>,
George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>
Cc: Ian Pratt <Ian.Pratt@eu.citrix.com>,
Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com>,
Jan Beulich <JBeulich@novell.com>
Subject: Memory fragmentation, order>0 allocation, and 4.0 dynamic RAM optimization features
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 10:13:55 -0800 (PST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7b9201fb-b0ad-4e4f-9c95-b9bc637e362c@default> (raw)
In a recent thread:
http://lists.xensource.com/archives/html/xen-devel/2010-02/msg00295.html
Jan Beulich points out that the memory fragmentation that results
from Transcendent Memory ("tmem") sometimes causes problems for
domain creation and PV migration because the shadow code requires
order=2 allocations and the domain struct is order=4.
Though tmem accelerates fragmentation, I *think* this fragmentation
can occur with page sharing/swapping, and possibly PoD. In fact,
I think it can occur even with just ballooning.
I think the domain struct issue should be relatively easy to
resolve (though maybe with a large patch), but the shadow code
may be much harder.
But unless the shadow code is also fixed, theoretically 75% of RAM
could be "free" but domain creation/migration failures may occur,
reported only as insufficient memory.
Clearly it's too late to fix this for 4.0 but, given that 4.0-based
product announcements are likely to emphasize the new 4.0 memory
optimization technologies, it might be good to resolve it very
early in 4.1/xen-unstable development.
Comments?
Are there other known order>0 allocations that might result
in similar issues?
Thanks,
Dan
next reply other threads:[~2010-02-08 18:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-02-08 18:13 Dan Magenheimer [this message]
2010-02-08 19:11 ` Memory fragmentation, order>0 allocation, and 4.0 dynamic RAM optimization features Keir Fraser
2010-02-09 10:50 ` Tim Deegan
2010-02-09 13:13 ` Jan Beulich
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2010-02-18 8:04 Jan Beulich
2010-02-18 16:09 ` Dan Magenheimer
2010-02-18 16:18 ` Jan Beulich
2010-02-18 17:32 ` Dan Magenheimer
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=7b9201fb-b0ad-4e4f-9c95-b9bc637e362c@default \
--to=dan.magenheimer@oracle.com \
--cc=Andrew.Peace@eu.citrix.com \
--cc=Ian.Pratt@eu.citrix.com \
--cc=JBeulich@novell.com \
--cc=george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com \
--cc=gm281@cam.ac.uk \
--cc=keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com \
--cc=pjcolp@cs.ubc.ca \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xensource.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).