| |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
xen-devel
RE: tmem on 4.1 (was [Xen-devel] Re: Freeze schedule)
> >>> On 11.01.11 at 19:28, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> > After consultation with Keir, here's a revised proposal:
> >
> > Feature submission freeze
> > after 31 Dec
> >
> > New feature patches posted before this point can be committed
> > afterwards if they needed the time to get into shape.
> >
> > New features not previously posted have missed the boat.
>
> Based on 4.0 experience, I'm afraid we'll have to default-disable
> tmem again for 4.1, since (to my knowledge) there hasn't been
> much (if any) work to eliminate non-order-0 post-boot allocations.
I haven't tested it due to other commitments, but didn't someone
(Tim?) submit a patch to change shadow tables to use order-0,
and Keir submit a patch to change domain struct to order-0?
IIRC, that's not everything... I think passthrough uses order>0
still... but I assumed the vast majority of the problem was solved.
If there's evidence to the contrary, I am OK with default-disable.
Until I manage to fight off all the anti-Xen alligators and get the
relatively small tmem changes upstream (c.f. cleancache and
frontswap and kztmem in lkml), the number of Xen tmem users will
remain smallish.
Dan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
|
|
| |
|
Home