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] linux/balloon: don't allow ballooningdowna domai

To: "dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx" <dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] linux/balloon: don't allow ballooningdowna domain below a reasonable limit
From: "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 07:29:22 +0100
Cc: Ky Srinivasan <KSrinivasan@xxxxxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, KurtGarloff <garloff@xxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 23:29:24 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20080429123518578.00000002360@djm-pc>
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: <47F9E4FD.76E4.0078.0@xxxxxxxxxx> <20080429123518578.00000002360@djm-pc>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> "Dan Magenheimer" <dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx> 29.04.08 20:35 >>>
>I made some actual measurements of the results of this algorithm
>(on a RHEL5u1-32bit guest).
>memory=        Minimum
>128             75776kB
>256            108544kB
>512            173056kB
>1024           238592kB
>This corresponds to expected values in the source comment
>However, I wonder if the algorithm is probably too
>conservative for large(r) memory domains.  With
>a light load (i.e. continuously compiling Xen),
>memory utilization rarely exceeds 72MB, regardless
>of the max memory (at least in the above tested values).

Sure, this was (in different wording) also stated in the comment
that came with the patch. A more precise estimate would certainly
be welcome, but I'm afraid is going to come with a much higher
(complexity) price tag. Unless you have something simple and
obvious in mind that we simply didn't spot...


Xen-devel mailing list