Linux Virtualization - Feb 2020 - [PATCH RFC] virtio_balloon: conservative balloon page shrinking

On Thursday, February 6, 2020 5:04 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin
wrote:
> virtio_balloon_shrinker_count(struct shrinker *shrinker,
> >  					struct virtio_balloon, shrinker);
> >  	unsigned long count;
> >
> > -	count = vb->num_pages / VIRTIO_BALLOON_PAGES_PER_PAGE;
> > +	if (conservative_shrinker &&
global_node_page_state(NR_FILE_PAGES))
> 
> I'd rather have an API for that in mm/. In particular, do we want other
> shrinkers to run, not just pagecache? To pick an example I'm familiar
> with, kvm mmu cache for nested virt?
We could make it extendable:

#define BALLOON_SHRINKER_AFTER_PAGE_CACHE	(1 << 0)
#define BALLOON_SHRINKER_AFTER_KVM_MMU_CACHE	(1 << 1)
...

uint64_t conservative_shrinker;
if ((conservative_shrinker | BALLOON_SHRINKER_AFTER_PAGE_CACHE) &&
global_node_page_state(NR_FILE_PAGES))
	return 0;

For now, we probably only need BALLOON_SHRINKER_AFTER_PAGE_CACHE.

Best,
Wei

On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 09:27:04AM +0000, Wang, Wei W
wrote:
> On Thursday, February 6, 2020 5:04 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > virtio_balloon_shrinker_count(struct shrinker *shrinker,
> > >  					struct virtio_balloon, shrinker);
> > >  	unsigned long count;
> > >
> > > -	count = vb->num_pages / VIRTIO_BALLOON_PAGES_PER_PAGE;
> > > +	if (conservative_shrinker &&
global_node_page_state(NR_FILE_PAGES))
> > 
> > I'd rather have an API for that in mm/. In particular, do we want
other
> > shrinkers to run, not just pagecache? To pick an example I'm
familiar
> > with, kvm mmu cache for nested virt?
> 
> We could make it extendable:
> 
> #define BALLOON_SHRINKER_AFTER_PAGE_CACHE	(1 << 0)
> #define BALLOON_SHRINKER_AFTER_KVM_MMU_CACHE	(1 << 1)
> ...
> 
> uint64_t conservative_shrinker;
> if ((conservative_shrinker | BALLOON_SHRINKER_AFTER_PAGE_CACHE) &&
global_node_page_state(NR_FILE_PAGES))
> 	return 0;
> 
> For now, we probably only need BALLOON_SHRINKER_AFTER_PAGE_CACHE.
> 
> Best,
> Wei
How about just making this a last resort thing to be compatible with
existing hypervisors? if someone wants to change behaviour
that really should use a feature bit ...

-- 
MST

On Thursday, February 6, 2020 5:31 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin
wrote:
> 
> How about just making this a last resort thing to be compatible with
existing
> hypervisors? if someone wants to change behaviour that really should use a
> feature bit ...
Yeah, sounds good to me to control via feature bits.

Best,
Wei