WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH][TOOLS] Reducing impact of domain save/restore/du

To: "Graham, Simon" <Simon.Graham@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH][TOOLS] Reducing impact of domain save/restore/dump on Dom0
From: Iustin Pop <iusty@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 00:41:36 +0100
Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 15:43:42 -0800
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <342BAC0A5467384983B586A6B0B3767104A6A559@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Mail-followup-to: "Graham, Simon" <Simon.Graham@xxxxxxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
References: <342BAC0A5467384983B586A6B0B3767104A6A559@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 04:48:09PM -0500, Graham, Simon wrote:
> Attached is a patch to unstable that stops save/restore/dump from hosing
> Dom0 when dealing with large domains - I'm actually resubmitting the
> dump patch I previously submitted in addition as it hasn't been
> incorporated yet; this is based on using fadvise64(DONTNEED) to throw
> the page cache away once it has been written to disk -- with this in
> place, memory usage does go up somewhat but then immediately drops again
> when the action is done and this change, in conjunction with setting the
> vm.dirty_ratio sysctl parameter seems to gives very good results.

Question - why fadvise64 and not posix_fadvise? posix_fadvise complies
to some posix standard, according to the man page, whereas the fadvise64
seems to be some glibc internal definition.

Just a thought.

Iustin

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