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

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 16/17] libxc/xc_dom_arm: Copy ACPI tables to guest space





On 20/07/2016 14:33, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
On 07/20/2016 08:33 AM, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi,

On 14/07/16 14:37, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jul 2016, Julien Grall wrote:
Hello,

On 12/07/2016 17:58, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
On 07/12/2016 12:10 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
On 12/07/2016 16:08, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
On 07/12/2016 10:57 AM, Shannon Zhao wrote:
It will affect some others part of the guest if we don't increment
the
"maxmem" requested by the user. For ARM the ACPI blob will be exposed
at a specific address that is outside of the guest RAM (see the guest
memory layout in public/arch-arm.h).

We chose this solution over putting in the RAM because the ACPI
tables
are not easily relocatable (compare to the device tree, initrd and
kernel) so we could not take advantage of superpage in both stage-2
(hypervisor) and stage-1 (kernel) page table.

Maybe this is something ARM-specific then. For x86 we will want to
keep
maxmem unchanged.

I don't think what I described in my previous mail is ARM-specific. The
pressure will be more important on the TLBs, if Xen does not use
superpage in
the stage 2 page tables (i.e EPT for x86) no matter the architecture.

IHMO, this seems to be a bigger drawback compare to add few more
kilobytes to
maxmem in the toolstack for the ACPI blob. You will loose them when
creating
the intermediate page table in any case.

I agree with Julien. On ARM we have to increase maxmem because I don't
think that shattering a superpage is acceptable for just a few KBs. In
fact, it's not much about increasing maxmem, but it's about keeping the
allocation of guest memory to the value passed by the user in "memory",
so that it can be done in the most efficient way possible. (I am
assuming users are going to allocate VMs of 2048MB, rather than 2049MB.)

I wouldn't want to end up adding to the performance tuning page on the
wiki "Make sure to add 1 more MB to the memory of your VM to get the
most out of the system."

I know that the location of the ACPI blob on x86 is different in guest
memory space, but it seems to me that the problem would be the same. Do
you have 1 gigabyte pages in stage-2 on x86? If so, I would think twice
about this. Otherwise, if you only have 4K and 2MB allocations, then it
might not make that much of a difference.

Looking at the x86 code, 1 gigabyte pages seems to be supported.

Boris, do you have any opinions on this?


I don't think I understand the superpage shattering argument.  In x86
the tables live in regular RAM and a guest is free to use those
addresses as regular memory.

This apparently is different from how ARM manages the tables (you said
in an earlier message that they are not part of RAM) so I can see that
taking memory from RAM allocation to store the tables may affect how
mapping is done, potentially causing GB pages to be broken.

In fact (and I am totally speculating here) padding memory for x86 may
actually *cause* shattering because we will have (for example) 2049MB of
RAM to deal with.

Correct me if I am wrong. On your series you are populating the page at a specific address for the ACPI tables separately to the RAM allocation. So you will shatter GB pages if the user provides 2048MB because the ACPI tables is accounted in the 2048MB.

The plan is to call setmaxmem with the size of the RAM + size of the ACPI tales. The RAM will still be 2048MB and therefore GB pages may be used.

--
Julien Grall

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.