|
From: | Paolo Bonzini |
Subject: | Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 18/29] hostmem: add file-based HostMemoryBackend |
Date: | Tue, 10 Jun 2014 13:29:06 +0200 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0 |
Il 10/06/2014 13:23, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 01:12:04PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:Il 10/06/2014 11:59, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto:What's the point compared to memory-backend-ram?That you can use shared memory, for example together with vhost-user.I don't think it's a good idea until THP supports shared memory.Why? For example it would be useful for testing on machines that you don't have root for, and that do not have a hugetlbfs mount point. For example you could run the test case from the vhost-user's patches.Sounds useful, I guess we could allow this when running under qtest.
Or TCG, or Xen. At this point, why single out KVM?(Also, "--enable-kvm -mem-path /dev/shm" works on 2.0, and it would be a regression in 2.1).
THP is not a magic wand and you can get slowness from memory fragmentation at any time.Right but there's a difference between "can get slowness when memory is overcommitted" and "will get slowness even on a mostly idle box".
I would like to see the slowness on a real-world benchmark though. I suspect in most scenarios it would not matter.
We should not limit ourselves due to kernel bugs.Why not? Practically people do have to run this on some kernel, we should not use kernel in a way that it can't support well. Old firefox doing a ton of fsync commands and slowing the box to a crawl comes to mind as another example of this.
Yes, and firefox doesn't say "no sorry can't do it" when running on such a kernel (which is much worse than more expensive TLB misses).
Paolo
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |