[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH v4 10/14] migration: add support to migrate shared regions li
From: |
Ashish Kalra |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH v4 10/14] migration: add support to migrate shared regions list |
Date: |
Fri, 10 Sep 2021 09:42:32 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) |
On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 09:11:09AM +0000, Wang, Wei W wrote:
> On Friday, September 10, 2021 4:48 PM, Ashish Kalra wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 07:54:10AM +0000, Wang, Wei W wrote:
> > There has been a long discussion on this implementation on KVM mailing list.
> > Tracking shared memory via a list of ranges instead of using bitmap is more
> > optimal. Most of the guest memory will be private and the unencrypted/shared
> > regions are basically ranges/intervals, so easy to implement and maintain
> > using
> > lists.
>
> OK. At which version did you discuss this or do you have a link? (I didn't
> find it in v9 KVM patches)
>
You can follow this email thread:
https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/20201211225542.GA30409@ashkalra_ubuntu_server/
> > A list will consume much less memory than a bitmap.
> >
> > The bitmap will consume more memory as it will need to be sized as per guest
> > RAM size and will remain sparsely populated due to limited amount of
> > shared/unencrypted guest memory regions.
>
> I also thought about this. It depends on the guest.
> I think "A list will consume much less memory" is true when we assume most of
> guest pages are private pages.
> From design perspective, what if guest chooses to have most of its pages
> being shared?
> Lists might consume much more memory than bitmaps in some cases, I think.
> (Probably I can check your previous discussions first)
>
This will probably depend on the most common use case and scenario, i
think that most common use case will be a mostly encrypted guest.
Thanks,
Ashish