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/
Home Products Support Community News


Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Make "xm mem-set" be lower bound on domX-min-mem

To: Gareth S Bestor <bestor@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Make "xm mem-set" be lower bound on domX-min-mem
From: Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 09:26:17 +0100
Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Sat, 20 May 2006 01:31:24 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <OF132784FB.A678FE56-ON88257173.005CDF8E-88257173.005DF417@xxxxxxxxxx>
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>
References: <OF132784FB.A678FE56-ON88257173.005CDF8E-88257173.005DF417@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Unless there is an known *architectural* limit in Xen on the lower bound of the memory for a guest DomU, then I agree - xend shouldn't impose an arbitrary one simply to act as 'hard hint' to prevent stupid users from doing stupid things (give 'em all the rope they want I say! :-) Care-and-feeding of naive users is best left to tools higher up the mgmt stack (IMO).

I agree with this. I'm also not sure about putting a lower bound in the balloon driver, but at least there we know that shrinking to <2% of original allocation is a very bad idea with very high probability.

 -- Keir

Xen-devel mailing list