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


[Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH v2.0 0/6] Add memory add support to Xen

To: "Keir Fraser" <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Yunhong Jiang" <yunhong.jiang@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH v2.0 0/6] Add memory add support to Xen
From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 09:51:21 +0100
Cc: Xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 01:51:49 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <C67CBC85.F48B%keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <E2263E4A5B2284449EEBD0AAB751098402CD17422E@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <C67CBC85.F48B%keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 10.07.09 10:38 >>>
>On 10/07/2009 09:32, "Jiang, Yunhong" <yunhong.jiang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> This for x86/64 guests of course. We already established that compat
>>> guests and memory add are going to have lesser mutual support.
>>  I checked this before and I thought it is ok.
>> Currently the machine_to_phys_order is caculated based on return value of
>> XENMEM_machphys_mapping. For both x86_32 and non-compat x86_64, this size 
>> will
>> not be adjusted dynamically, so it is ok (it will cover the whole possible
>> range).
>> The only issue is for compatible domain. For compatible domain, the value
>> returned in XENMEM_machphys_mapping is adjusted (i.e.
>> MACH2PHYS_COMPAT_VIRT_START(d)). However, domain_clamp_alloc_bitsize() in
>> domainheap allocator will make sure the hot-added memory will not be assigned
>> to the guest.
>> Did I miss-understand something?
>Sounds okay to me. Perhaps Jan has other thoughts?

Oh, indeed - somehow I (incorrectly) recalled that this hypercall returned the
actually used boundary rather than the highest possible one. With me being
wrong here, all should be fine with that change.

Sorry for the noise,

Xen-devel mailing list