Message ID | 20191024230744.14543-1-sean.j.christopherson@intel.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | KVM: Dynamically size memslot arrays | expand |
On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 04:07:29PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > The end goal of this series is to dynamically size the memslot array so > that KVM allocates memory based on the number of memslots in use, as > opposed to unconditionally allocating memory for the maximum number of > memslots. On x86, each memslot consumes 88 bytes, and so with 2 address > spaces of 512 memslots, each VM consumes ~90k bytes for the memslots. > E.g. given a VM that uses a total of 30 memslots, dynamic sizing reduces > the memory footprint from 90k to ~2.6k bytes. > > The changes required to support dynamic sizing are relatively small, > e.g. are essentially contained in patches 14/15 and 15/15. Patches 1-13 > clean up the memslot code, which has gotten quite crusty, especially > __kvm_set_memory_region(). The clean up is likely not strictly necessary > to switch to dynamic sizing, but I didn't have a remotely reasonable > level of confidence in the correctness of the dynamic sizing without first > doing the clean up. > > Christoffer, I added your Tested-by to the patches that I was confident > would be fully tested based on the desription of what you tested. Let me > know if you disagree with any of 'em. > The only testing I've done of patch 9 would be via the vm_free part of kvm selftest, so not sure how valid that is, but sure. Looks fine otherwise. Thanks, Christoffer
On 2019-10-25 00:07, Sean Christopherson wrote: > The end goal of this series is to dynamically size the memslot array > so > that KVM allocates memory based on the number of memslots in use, as > opposed to unconditionally allocating memory for the maximum number > of > memslots. On x86, each memslot consumes 88 bytes, and so with 2 > address > spaces of 512 memslots, each VM consumes ~90k bytes for the memslots. > E.g. given a VM that uses a total of 30 memslots, dynamic sizing > reduces > the memory footprint from 90k to ~2.6k bytes. > > The changes required to support dynamic sizing are relatively small, > e.g. are essentially contained in patches 14/15 and 15/15. Patches > 1-13 > clean up the memslot code, which has gotten quite crusty, especially > __kvm_set_memory_region(). The clean up is likely not strictly > necessary > to switch to dynamic sizing, but I didn't have a remotely reasonable > level of confidence in the correctness of the dynamic sizing without > first > doing the clean up. I've finally found time to test this on a garden variety of arm64 boxes, and nothing caught fire. It surely must be doing something right! FWIW: Tested-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org> M.
On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 04:07:29PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > The end goal of this series is to dynamically size the memslot array so > that KVM allocates memory based on the number of memslots in use, as > opposed to unconditionally allocating memory for the maximum number of > memslots. On x86, each memslot consumes 88 bytes, and so with 2 address > spaces of 512 memslots, each VM consumes ~90k bytes for the memslots. > E.g. given a VM that uses a total of 30 memslots, dynamic sizing reduces > the memory footprint from 90k to ~2.6k bytes. > > The changes required to support dynamic sizing are relatively small, > e.g. are essentially contained in patches 14/15 and 15/15. Patches 1-13 > clean up the memslot code, which has gotten quite crusty, especially > __kvm_set_memory_region(). The clean up is likely not strictly necessary > to switch to dynamic sizing, but I didn't have a remotely reasonable > level of confidence in the correctness of the dynamic sizing without first > doing the clean up. > > Christoffer, I added your Tested-by to the patches that I was confident > would be fully tested based on the desription of what you tested. Let me > know if you disagree with any of 'em. > > v3: > - Fix build errors on PPC and MIPS due to missed params during > refactoring [kbuild test robot]. > - Rename the helpers for update_memslots() and add comments describing > the new algorithm and how it interacts with searching [Paolo]. > - Remove the unnecessary and obnoxious warning regarding memslots being > a flexible array [Paolo]. > - Fix typos in the changelog of patch 09/15 [Christoffer]. > - Collect tags [Christoffer]. > > v2: > - Split "Drop kvm_arch_create_memslot()" into three patches to move > minor functional changes to standalone patches [Janosch]. > - Rebase to latest kvm/queue (f0574a1cea5b, "KVM: x86: fix ...") > - Collect an Acked-by and a Reviewed-by Paolo, do you want me to rebase this to the latest kvm/queue?
On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 02:14:33PM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote: > On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 04:07:29PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > The end goal of this series is to dynamically size the memslot array so > > that KVM allocates memory based on the number of memslots in use, as > > opposed to unconditionally allocating memory for the maximum number of > > memslots. On x86, each memslot consumes 88 bytes, and so with 2 address > > spaces of 512 memslots, each VM consumes ~90k bytes for the memslots. > > E.g. given a VM that uses a total of 30 memslots, dynamic sizing reduces > > the memory footprint from 90k to ~2.6k bytes. > > > > The changes required to support dynamic sizing are relatively small, > > e.g. are essentially contained in patches 14/15 and 15/15. Patches 1-13 > > clean up the memslot code, which has gotten quite crusty, especially > > __kvm_set_memory_region(). The clean up is likely not strictly necessary > > to switch to dynamic sizing, but I didn't have a remotely reasonable > > level of confidence in the correctness of the dynamic sizing without first > > doing the clean up. > > > > Christoffer, I added your Tested-by to the patches that I was confident > > would be fully tested based on the desription of what you tested. Let me > > know if you disagree with any of 'em. > > > > v3: > > - Fix build errors on PPC and MIPS due to missed params during > > refactoring [kbuild test robot]. > > - Rename the helpers for update_memslots() and add comments describing > > the new algorithm and how it interacts with searching [Paolo]. > > - Remove the unnecessary and obnoxious warning regarding memslots being > > a flexible array [Paolo]. > > - Fix typos in the changelog of patch 09/15 [Christoffer]. > > - Collect tags [Christoffer]. > > > > v2: > > - Split "Drop kvm_arch_create_memslot()" into three patches to move > > minor functional changes to standalone patches [Janosch]. > > - Rebase to latest kvm/queue (f0574a1cea5b, "KVM: x86: fix ...") > > - Collect an Acked-by and a Reviewed-by > > Paolo, do you want me to rebase this to the latest kvm/queue? Ping. Applies cleanly on the current kvm/queue and nothing caught fire in testing (though I only re-tested the series as a whole).
On 13.12.19 21:01, Sean Christopherson wrote: > On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 02:14:33PM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 04:07:29PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: >>> The end goal of this series is to dynamically size the memslot array so >>> that KVM allocates memory based on the number of memslots in use, as >>> opposed to unconditionally allocating memory for the maximum number of >>> memslots. On x86, each memslot consumes 88 bytes, and so with 2 address >>> spaces of 512 memslots, each VM consumes ~90k bytes for the memslots. >>> E.g. given a VM that uses a total of 30 memslots, dynamic sizing reduces >>> the memory footprint from 90k to ~2.6k bytes. >>> >>> The changes required to support dynamic sizing are relatively small, >>> e.g. are essentially contained in patches 14/15 and 15/15. Patches 1-13 >>> clean up the memslot code, which has gotten quite crusty, especially >>> __kvm_set_memory_region(). The clean up is likely not strictly necessary >>> to switch to dynamic sizing, but I didn't have a remotely reasonable >>> level of confidence in the correctness of the dynamic sizing without first >>> doing the clean up. >>> >>> Christoffer, I added your Tested-by to the patches that I was confident >>> would be fully tested based on the desription of what you tested. Let me >>> know if you disagree with any of 'em. >>> >>> v3: >>> - Fix build errors on PPC and MIPS due to missed params during >>> refactoring [kbuild test robot]. >>> - Rename the helpers for update_memslots() and add comments describing >>> the new algorithm and how it interacts with searching [Paolo]. >>> - Remove the unnecessary and obnoxious warning regarding memslots being >>> a flexible array [Paolo]. >>> - Fix typos in the changelog of patch 09/15 [Christoffer]. >>> - Collect tags [Christoffer]. >>> >>> v2: >>> - Split "Drop kvm_arch_create_memslot()" into three patches to move >>> minor functional changes to standalone patches [Janosch]. >>> - Rebase to latest kvm/queue (f0574a1cea5b, "KVM: x86: fix ...") >>> - Collect an Acked-by and a Reviewed-by >> >> Paolo, do you want me to rebase this to the latest kvm/queue? > > Ping. > > Applies cleanly on the current kvm/queue and nothing caught fire in > testing (though I only re-tested the series as a whole). Do you have the latest version somewhere on a branch? The version on the list no longer applies cleanly.
On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 09:25:24AM +0100, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > > On 13.12.19 21:01, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > Applies cleanly on the current kvm/queue and nothing caught fire in > > testing (though I only re-tested the series as a whole). > > Do you have the latest version somewhere on a branch? The version on the > list no longer applies cleanly. Ah, I only tested with my sparse x86-only tree. The result with three-way merging, i.e. 'git am -3', looks correct at a glance. Regardless, I need to spin a new version to handle a conflict with an unrelated in-flight memslots bug fix, I'll get that sent out today.