[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH v2 2/2] spapr: Memory hot-unplug support

From: Thomas Huth
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH v2 2/2] spapr: Memory hot-unplug support
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 08:54:34 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.0

On 26.04.2016 23:03, Michael Roth wrote:
> Quoting Igor Mammedov (2016-04-26 02:52:36)
>> On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 10:39:23 +0530
>> Bharata B Rao <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 11:20:50AM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 10:11:54 +0530
>>>> Bharata B Rao <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 12:36:05PM +1100, David Gibson wrote:  
>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 10:08:56AM +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote:    
>>>>>>> Add support to hot remove pc-dimm memory devices.
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Bharata B Rao <address@hidden>    
>>>>>> Reviewed-by: David Gibson <address@hidden>
>>>>>> Looks correct, but again, needs to wait on the PAPR change.  
>>>> [...]  
>>>>> While we are here, I would also like to get some opinion on the real
>>>>> need for memory unplug. Is there anything that memory unplug gives us
>>>>> which memory ballooning (shrinking mem via ballooning) can't give ?  
>>>> Sure ballooning can complement memory hotplug but turning it on would
>>>> effectively reduce hotplug to balloning as it would enable overcommit
>>>> capability instead of hard partitioning pc-dimms provides. So one
>>>> could just use ballooning only and not bother with hotplug at all.
>>>> On the other hand memory hotplug/unplug (at least on x86) tries
>>>> to model real hardware, thus removing need in paravirt ballooning
>>>> solution in favor of native guest support.  
>>> Thanks for your views.
>>>> PS:
>>>> Guest wise, currently hot-unplug is not well supported in linux,
>>>> i.e. it's not guarantied that guest will honor unplug request
>>>> as it may pin dimm by using it as a non migratable memory. So
>>>> there is something to work on guest side to make unplug more
>>>> reliable/guarantied.  
>>> In the above scenario where the guest doesn't allow removal of certain
>>> parts of DIMM memory, what is the expected behaviour as far as QEMU
>>> DIMM device is concerned ? I seem to be running into this situation
>>> very often with PowerPC mem unplug where I am left with a DIMM device
>>> that has only some memory blocks released. In this situation, I would like
>>> to block further unplug requests on the same device, but QEMU seems
>>> to allow more such unplug requests to come in via the monitor. So
>>> qdev won't help me here ? Should I detect such condition from the
>>> machine unplug() handler and take required action ?
>> I think offlining is a guests task along with recovering from
>> inability to offline (i.e. offline all + eject or restore original state).
>> QUEM does it's job by notifying guest what dimm it wants to remove
>> and removes it when guest asks it (at least in x86 world).
> In the case of pseries, the DIMM abstraction isn't really exposed to
> the guest, but rather the memory blocks we use to make the backing
> memdev memory available to the guest. During unplug, the guest
> completely releases these blocks back to QEMU, and if it can only
> release a subset of what's requested it does not attempt to recover.
> We can potentially change that behavior on the guest side, since
> partially-freed DIMMs aren't currently useful on the host-side...
> But, in the case of pseries, I wonder if it makes sense to maybe go
> ahead and MADV_DONTNEED the ranges backing these released blocks so the
> host can at least partially reclaim the memory from a partially
> unplugged DIMM?

Sounds like this could be a good compromise.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]