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

Re: [Xen-devel] slow xp hibernation revisited

  • To: James Harper <james.harper@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Tim Deegan <Tim.Deegan@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • From: Keir Fraser <keir.xen@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 04 Jun 2011 07:39:40 +0100
  • Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Delivery-date: Fri, 03 Jun 2011 23:40:47 -0700
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=user-agent:date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id:thread-topic :thread-index:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=OKW/qB3efY2THtztZKIPC0hxEYIXgFU/DHdLi+M+VVf58luhOfTqwC4qfs1qhkG4c0 bVE5SN1+Dga1cMoetSRERR8Al614qgHM3vhxHoLo3hrO7Cf0w8LYB54Uya/0glnAInT1 6XPTMO6zwxHCcBOPgaQ9FvhreYOCp3z1oYqus=
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
  • Thread-index: AcwiBQi9TTmL+VIUTGmHL1mgnlOPmgAak8qgAADdoAAAA9fn5A==
  • Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] slow xp hibernation revisited

On 04/06/2011 05:54, "James Harper" <james.harper@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> It's the !test_bit(address_offset>>XC_PAGE_SHIFT,
> entry->valid_mapping)
>> that is causing the if expression to be true. From what I can see so
>> far, the bit representing the pfn in entry->valid_mapping is 0 because
>> err[] returned for that pfn was -EINVAL.
>> Maybe the test is superfluous? Is there a need to do the remap if all
>> the other variables in the expression are satisfied? If the remap was
>> already done and the page could not be mapped last time, what reasons
>> are there why it would succeed this time?
> FWIW, removing the test_bit makes the hibernate go faster than my screen
> can refresh over a slow DSL connection and in a quick 30 second test
> doesn't appear to have any adverse effects.
> If there is a chance that a subsequent call to qemu_remap_bucket with
> identical parameters could successfully map a page that couldn't be
> mapped in the previous call, are there any optimisations that could be
> done? Maybe only attempt to map the page being accessed rather than all
> pages in the bucket if the other parameters are identical?

I'm guessing this happens because of frequent guest CPU access to non-RAM
during hibernate? Unfortunately really the qemu checks do make sense, I'd
say, since the memory map of the guest can be changed dynamically , and we
currently only flush the map_cache on XENMEM_decrease_reservation

One fix would be for Xen to know which regions of non-RAM are actually
emulated device areas, and only forward those to qemu. It could then
quick-fail on the rest.

However, the easiest fix would be to only re-try to map the one pfn under
test. Reloading a whole bucket takes bloody ages as they are *huge*: 256kB
in 32-bit qemu; 4MB in 64-bit qemu. It might be easiest to do a test re-map
of the one page to a scratch area, then iff it succeeds, *then* call
qemu_remap_bucket(). Then you remap the bucket only if something really has
changed, and you don't have to mess too much with modifying the bucket
yourself outside of remap_bucket.

How does that sound?

 -- Keir

> James
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Xen-devel mailing list



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