On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 12:10:20PM -0500, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 10:51:42AM -0500, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 05:28:51PM +0100, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> > > Protect against CPU exhaust by event/x process during
> > > errors by adding some delays in scheduling next event.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Kiper <dkiper@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/xen/balloon.c | 99
> > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
> > > 1 files changed, 80 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/xen/balloon.c b/drivers/xen/balloon.c
> > > index 4223f64..ed103d4 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/xen/balloon.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/xen/balloon.c
> > > @@ -66,6 +66,20 @@
> > >
> > > #define BALLOON_CLASS_NAME "xen_memory"
> > >
> > > +/*
> > > + * balloon_process() state:
> > > + *
> > > + * BP_ERROR: error, go to sleep,
> > > + * BP_DONE: done or nothing to do,
> > > + * BP_HUNGRY: hungry.
> > > + */
> > > +
> > > +enum bp_state {
> > > + BP_ERROR,
> >
> > BP_EAGAIN?
> >
> > So if we fail to increase the first hour, we would keep on trying to
> > increase forever (with a 32 second delay between each call). Do you
> > think it makes sense (as a future patch, not tied in with this patchset)
> > to printout a printk(KERN_INFO that we have been trying to increase
> > for the last X hours, seconds and have not gone anywhere (and perhaps
> > stop trying to allocate more memory?).
>
> Duh, you did that in the next patch with the mh_policy.
No problem. You showed me that I could improve that. Thx.
Daniel
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home