|   | 
      | 
  
  
      | 
      | 
  
 
     | 
    | 
  
  
     | 
    | 
  
  
    |   | 
      | 
  
  
    | 
         
xen-devel
RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Make "xm mem-set" be lower bound	ondomX-min-mem
 
Yes, trying to balloon a domain to less than
2% of its initial memory allocation causes things to go haywire. 
  
http://bugzilla.xensource.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=651 
  
Aravindh 
  
 
 
From:
xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gareth S Bestor 
Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2006 5:28
PM 
To: Keir Fraser 
Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH]
Make "xm mem-set" be lower bound ondomX-min-mem 
 
  
>...shrinking to <2% of original allocation is a
very bad idea 
 
An absolute limit might be easier to handle - and expose to users - than a
relative one, especially up-front in CIM where it exposes min/max limits on
resource allocations. Or is it really <2% of whatever the original memory
allocation is when things go to kabluwey... ? 
 
BTW - at the moment we are exposing a 16MB minimum DomU memory size thru our
CIM providers resource allocation defaults, although this is more a hint than
anything actually enforced; the mgmt client can still pass in whatever value
they like and we (CIM) will blindly pass it along to xm create ... 
 
- Gareth 
 
Dr. Gareth S. Bestor 
IBM Linux Technology
 Center 
M/S DES2-01 
15300 SW Koll Parkway,
 Beaverton, OR 97006 
503-578-3186, T/L 775-3186, Fax 503-578-3186  
 
 Keir
Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 
 
 
 
  | 
   Keir
  Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>  
  05/20/06 01:26 AM 
   | 
  
  
   
    | 
       
    To 
     | 
    
       
    Gareth S
    Bestor/Beaverton/IBM@IBMUS 
     | 
    
   
    | 
       
    cc 
     | 
    
       
    xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
     | 
    
   
    | 
       
    Subject 
     | 
    
       
    Re: [Xen-devel]
    [PATCH] Make "xm mem-set" be lower bound on domX-min-mem 
     | 
    
   
    
  
   
   | 
  
 
 
>
 Unless there is an known *architectural* limit in Xen on the lower  
> bound of the memory for a guest DomU, then I
agree - xend 
>  shouldn't impose an arbitrary one
simply to act as 'hard hint' to  
> prevent stupid users from doing stupid things 
>  (give 'em all the rope they want I say!
:-) Care-and-feeding of naive  
> users is best left to tools higher up the
mgmt stack (IMO). 
 
I agree with this. I'm also not sure about putting
a lower bound in the  
balloon driver, but at least there we know that
shrinking to <2% of  
original allocation is a very bad idea with very
high probability. 
 
 -- Keir 
 
 
 
 
 |  
 _______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
 
 |   
 
 | 
    | 
  
  
    |   | 
    |