|
xen-devel
RE: [Xen-devel] xen: memory initialization/balloon fixes (#3)
> From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge [mailto:jeremy@xxxxxxxx]
>
> On 09/22/2011 03:34 PM, Dan Magenheimer wrote:
> >> I'm aware of that... "some" has been a fixed size of a few megabytes
> >> in Xen for a long time. I am seeing 30-60MB or more.
> > Never mind on this part. After further debugging, I can see
> > that this difference is due to normal uses of memory by the
> > kernel for XEN PAGETABLES and RAMDISK etc. It's unfortunate
> > that the difference is so large, but I guess that's in part due
> > to the desire to use the same kernel binary for native and
> > virtualized. I don't remember it being nearly so high for
> > older PV kernels, but I guess it's progress! :-}
>
> I don't think the Xen parts allocate/reserves lots of memory
> unnecessarily, so it shouldn't be too different from the 2.6.18-xen
> kernels. They do reserve various chunks of memory, but for things like
> RAMDISK I think they get released again (and anyway, I don't think
> that's going to be anywhere near 30MB, let alone 60). I'm not very
> confident in those /proc/meminfo numbers - they may count memory as
> "reserved" if its in a reserved region even if the pages themselves have
> been released to the kernel pool.
No, the first line of /proc/meminfo is precisely "totalram_pages".
> >>>> Part B of the problem (and the one most important to me) is that
> >>>> setting /sys/devices/system/xen_memory/xen_memory0/target_kb
> >>>> to X results in a MemTotal inside the domU (as observed by
> >>>> "head -1 /proc/meminfo") of X-D. This can be particularly painful
> >>>> when X is aggressively small as X-D may result in OOMs.
> >>>> To use kernel function/variable names (and I observed this with
> >>>> some debugging code), when balloon_set_new_target(X) is called
> >>>> totalram_pages gets driven to X-D.
> >>> Again, this looks like the correct behavior to me.
> >> Hmmm... so if a user (or automated tool) uses the Xen-defined
> >> API (i.e. /sys/devices/system/xen_memory/xen_memory0/target_kb)
> >> to use the Xen balloon driver to attempt to reduce memory usage
> >> to 100MB, and the Xen balloon driver instead reduces it to
> >> some random number somewhere between 40MB and 90MB, which
> >> may or may not cause OOMs, you consider this correct behavior?
> > I still think this is a bug but apparently orthogonal to
> > your patchset. So sorry to bother you.
>
> If you ask for 100MB, it should never try to make the domain smaller
> than that; if it does, it suggests the number is being misparsed or
> something.
OK then balloon_stats.current_pages can never be larger than totalram_pages.
Which means that balloon_stats.current_pages must always grow
and shrink when totalram_pages does (which is true now only in
the balloon driver code). Which means, I think:
balloon_stats.current_pages is just plain wrong! It doesn't need to
exist! If we replace every instance in balloon.c with totalram_pages,
I think everything just works. Will run some tests tomorrow.
Dan
P.S. Not sure about Daniel's hotplug stuff though....
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
|
|
Home