qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [Qemu-devel] [QEMU 3/7] Add the hmp and qmp interface for dropping c


From: Li, Liang Z
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [QEMU 3/7] Add the hmp and qmp interface for dropping cache
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 01:15:51 +0000

> * Li, Liang Z (address@hidden) wrote:
> > > Because writing to this file is a nondestructive operation and dirty
> > > objects are not freeable, the user should run sync(1) first.
> > > [/quote]
> > >
> > > IOW, by 'slab' you mean dentries and inodes ?
> > >
> > Yes.
> >
> > > > +##
> > > > +{ 'command': 'balloon_drop_cache', 'data': {'value':
> > > > +'DropCacheType'} }
> > >
> > > Also, as noted in the man page quote above, it is recommended to
> > > call
> > > sync() to minimise dirty pages. Should we have a way to request a
> > > sync as part of this monitor command.
> > >
> > > More generally, it feels like this is taking as down a path towards
> > > actively managing the guest kernel VM from the host. Is this really
> > > a path we want to be going down, given that its going to take us
> > > into increasing non-portable concepts which are potentially
> > > different for each guest OS kernel.  Is this drop caches feature at
> > > all applicable to Windows, OS-X, *BSD guest OS impls of the balloon
> > > driver ? If it is applicable, are the 3 fixed constants you've
> >
> > No.
> >
> > > defined at all useful to those other OS ?
> > >
> >
> > Maybe they are not.
> > I agree that there are too Linux specific.  And I did more than needed.
> > Actually, I just want to drop the clean cache, do more than that is
> > too heavy and no good for performance.
> >
> > > I'm warying of us taking a design path which is so Linux specific it
> > > isn't useful elsewhere. IOW, just because we can do this, doesn't
> > > mean we should do this...
> > >
> >
> > Agree.
> 
> I can see an argument for giving the guest a hint about what's going on and
> letting the guest decide what it's going to do - so telling the guest that a
> migration is happening and you'd like it to make the hosts life easy seems
> reasonable and it doesn't make any guest OS assumptions.
> 
> Dave
> 

It seems the way I used in the previous patches is more acceptable.

Thanks!
Liang



reply via email to

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