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] Re: [PATCH] Disable auto-balloon on ia64

To: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] Disable auto-balloon on ia64
From: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@xxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 08:25:45 -0600
Cc: Charles Coffing <ccoffing@xxxxxxxxxx>, xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xen-ia64-devel <xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Mon, 22 May 2006 07:26:13 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <571ACEFD467F7749BC50E0A98C17CDD8094E7C82@pdsmsx403>
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>
Organization: LOSL
References: <571ACEFD467F7749BC50E0A98C17CDD8094E7C82@pdsmsx403>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Mon, 2006-05-22 at 21:33 +0800, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> OK, the question by far is that ia64 describes the memory hierarchy 
> presented to domain by d->max_pages. Before balloon is ready, we at 
> least need to ensure all frames covered by d->max_pages allocated for 
> target domain. Then there're two alternatives:
>       - Keep the first piece of change on increase_reservation, which 
> ensures all pages including extra spaces allocated immediately.
>       - Pass the extra memory size to xen at arch_set_info_guest, and 
> then change xen/ia64 to only tell domain maximum pfns as 
> d->max_pages-extra_size
> Both need to be changed again later if balloon is ready. So I prefer to 
> option I which is simpler and can help Alex to do sync quickly. How do 
> you think?

   I agree, I think we can get by with only the ia64 changes in the
increase_reservation call.  The other option seems more fragile.  Keir,
would you include the first chunk of Kevin's patch as a temporary
solution until we have better ballooning support on xen/ia64 (should be
soon)?  Thanks,


Alex Williamson                             HP Linux & Open Source Lab

Xen-devel mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>