|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] hypervisor memory usage
I have nailed the problem down to RHEL version of
compute_dom0_nr_pages() function.
Vanilla xen uses something like this to reserve up to 128MB of ram for
DMA etc. The same alg. is used in rhel <= 5.2 and also in official xen 3.4.1
if ( dom0_nrpages == 0 )
{
dom0_nrpages = avail;
dom0_nrpages = min(dom0_nrpages / 16, 128L << (20 - PAGE_SHIFT));
dom0_nrpages = -dom0_nrpages;
}
However, RHEL >= 5.3 uses this:
/*
* If domain 0 allocation isn't specified, reserve 1/16th of available
* memory for things like DMA buffers. This reservation is clamped to
* a maximum of 384MB.
*/
if ( dom0_nrpages == 0 )
{
dom0_nrpages = avail;
dom0_nrpages = min(dom0_nrpages / 8, 384L << (20 - PAGE_SHIFT));
dom0_nrpages = -dom0_nrpages;
} else {
/* User specified a dom0_size. Do not clamp the maximum. */
dom0_max_nrpages = LONG_MAX;
}
I do understand that they like the idea of reserving more ram, but
additionally /8 would make 1/8th of memory instead of 1/16th?
So this might be intended behavior, just not advertised anywhere, and as
a kind of side effect, specifying dom0_mem would altogether skip this
funny allocation scheme - at least in theory [ I've just put
dom0_mem=64G (but I have 8G only) ] and it is not coming up, and I will
not be able to t see the console for at least next couple of hours.
Vladimir Zidar wrote:
Chris,
good that you pointed to 5.2 vs 5.3 vs 5.4,
the difference in number of pages is noticed between these:
xen.gz-2.6.18-92.1.22.el5 - last 5.2 update - all pages are ok,
xen.gz-2.6.18-128.el5 - first 5.3 release - ~80000 pages missing
on 8GB ram setup.
Chris Lalancette wrote:
Vladimir Zidar wrote:
Sounds possible. However it would be great if there was switch to
disable that feature in case hardware is not capable of VT-d, as I'd
rather use those 300mb than have software support for something that
I can't actually use.
In point of fact, VT-d is disabled by default; you need to explicitly
enable it
for it to use memory. However, it's possible that there's a bug, or
some other
change caused the memory difference, so it's worthwhile to try and
track it down
a little better. In particular, you jumped from the 5.2 kernel to
the 5.4, so
it would be worthwhile to try the 5.3 kernel and see what you get.
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- [Xen-devel] hypervisor memory usage, Vladimir Zidar
- Re: [Xen-devel] hypervisor memory usage, Pasi Kärkkäinen
- Re: [Xen-devel] hypervisor memory usage, Vladimir Zidar
- Re: [Xen-devel] hypervisor memory usage, Keir Fraser
- Re: [Xen-devel] hypervisor memory usage, Vladimir Zidar
- Re: [Xen-devel] hypervisor memory usage, Pasi Kärkkäinen
- Re: [Xen-devel] hypervisor memory usage, Vladimir Zidar
- Re: [Xen-devel] hypervisor memory usage, Pasi Kärkkäinen
- Re: [Xen-devel] hypervisor memory usage, Chris Lalancette
- Re: [Xen-devel] hypervisor memory usage, Vladimir Zidar
- Re: [Xen-devel] hypervisor memory usage,
Vladimir Zidar <=
- Re: [Xen-devel] hypervisor memory usage, Vladimir Zidar
- Re: [Xen-devel] hypervisor memory usage, Keir Fraser
|
|
|
|
|