From: Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com>
To: Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@oracle.com>,
"xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" <xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>,
Grzegorz Milos <gm281@cam.ac.uk>, Patrick Colp <pjcolp@cs.ubc.ca>,
Andre
Cc: Ian Pratt <Ian.Pratt@eu.citrix.com>, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@novell.com>
Subject: Re: Memory fragmentation, order>0 allocation, and 4.0 dynamic RAM optimization features
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 19:11:24 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <C796125C.975F%keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7b9201fb-b0ad-4e4f-9c95-b9bc637e362c@default>
On 08/02/2010 18:13, "Dan Magenheimer" <dan.magenheimer@oracle.com> wrote:
> 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.
I think everything but the shadow use of order-2 allocations is pretty easy
to fix; just a case of logically carving up the multi-page structures.
I'm not sure, but suspect that fragmenting the shadow allocations may
require extra book-keeping space in the page_info structure, for example.
-- Keir
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-02-08 19:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-02-08 18:13 Memory fragmentation, order>0 allocation, and 4.0 dynamic RAM optimization features Dan Magenheimer
2010-02-08 19:11 ` Keir Fraser [this message]
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=C796125C.975F%keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com \
--to=keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com \
--cc=Ian.Pratt@eu.citrix.com \
--cc=JBeulich@novell.com \
--cc=dan.magenheimer@oracle.com \
--cc=gm281@cam.ac.uk \
--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).