[Xen-devel] Re: Memory hot-add and c/s 20892: bad interaction?

To:	Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>, Yunhong Jiang <yunhong.jiang@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject:	[Xen-devel] Re: Memory hot-add and c/s 20892: bad interaction?
From:	Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:	Mon, 08 Feb 2010 11:14:38 +0000
Cc:	"xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date:	Mon, 08 Feb 2010 03:15:01 -0800
Envelope-to:	www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to:	<4B6FFEEF020000780002E3C5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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>
Sender:	xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index:	Acqoryvt0Oh12L7RTUe8zHJJYT73PQAALr7l
Thread-topic:	Memory hot-add and c/s 20892: bad interaction?
User-agent:	Microsoft-Entourage/12.23.0.091001

On 08/02/2010 11:09, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> I was wondering whether this changeset is actually a bad idea in light of
>> memory hot-add, as now implemented by Yunhong? I would imagine this can mean
>> that max_mfn is now dynamic, and can increase in value after boot. So would
>> 20892 thus leave all existing guests (e.g., dom0!) broken after a hot-add
>> which adds new highest RAM addresses?
> 
> You probably overlooked the
> 
> +        if ( !mem_hotplug )

Yeah, I looked at the changeset comment and not the patch itself! Sorry
about that.

 -- Keir



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

xen-devel

[Xen-devel] Re: Memory hot-add and c/s 20892: bad interaction?