[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v1] migration: skip sending ram pages released b

From: Roman Kagan
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v1] migration: skip sending ram pages released by virtio-balloon driver.
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 14:27:54 +0300
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)

[ Sorry I've lost this thread with email setup changes on my side;
catching up ]

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 06:50:45PM +0530, Jitendra Kolhe wrote:
> On 3/11/2016 8:09 PM, Jitendra Kolhe wrote:
> > Here is what
> >I tried, let’s say we have 3 versions of qemu (below timings are for
> >16GB idle guest with 12GB ballooned out)
> >
> >v1. Unmodified qemu – absolutely not code change – Total Migration time
> >= ~7600ms (I rounded this one to ~8000ms)
> >v2. Modified qemu 1 – with proposed patch set (which skips both zero
> >pages scan and migrating control information for ballooned out pages) -
> >Total Migration time = ~5700ms
> >v3. Modified qemu 2 – only with changes to save_zero_page() as discussed
> >in previous mail (and of course using proposed patch set only to
> >maintain bitmap for ballooned out pages) – Total migration time is
> >irrelevant in this case.
> >Total Zero page scan time = ~1789ms
> >Total (save_page_header + qemu_put_byte(f, 0)) = ~556ms.
> >Everything seems to add up here (may not be exact) – 5700+1789+559 =
> >~8000ms
> >
> >I see 2 factors that we have not considered in this add up a. overhead
> >for migrating balloon bitmap to target and b. as you mentioned below
> >overhead of qemu_clock_get_ns().
> Missed one more factor of testing each page against balloon bitmap during
> migration, which is consuming around ~320ms for same configuration. If we
> remove this overhead which is introduced by proposed patch set from above
> calculation we almost get total migration time for unmodified qemu
> (5700-320+1789+559=~7700ms)

I'm a bit lost in the numbers you quote, so let me try with
back-of-the-envelope calculation.

First off, the way you identify pages that don't need to be sent is
basically orthogonal to how you optimize the protocol to send them.  So
teaching is_zero_range() to consult unmapped or ballooned out page map
looks like a low-hanging fruit that may benefit the migration time by
avoiding scanning the memory, without protocol changes. [And vice versa,
if sending the zero pages bitmap brought so big benefit it would make
sense to apply it to pages found by scanning, too].

Now regarding the protocol:

 - as a first approximation, let's speak in terms of transferred data

 - consider a VM using 1/10 of its memory (I think this can be
   considered an extreme of over-provisioning)

 - a whiteout is 3 decimal orders smaller than a page, so with zero
   pages replaced by whiteouts (current protocol) the overall
   transferred data size for zero pages is on the order of a percent of
   the total transferred data size

 - zero page bitmap would reduce that further by a couple of orders

So, if this calculation is not totally off, extending the protocol to
use zero page bitmaps is unlikely to give an improvement at more than a
percent level.

I'm not sure it pays off the extra code paths and incompatible protocol


reply via email to

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