WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
Xen

xen-devel

[Top] [All Lists]

[Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH][BALLOON] Fix minimum target

To: "Puthiyaparambil, Aravindh" <aravindh.puthiyaparambil@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH][BALLOON] Fix minimum target
From: Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 2006年5月27日 23:46:44 +0100
Cc: Ky Srinivasan <KSrinivasan@xxxxxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Carb, Brian A" <Brian.Carb@xxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: 2006年5月27日 15:52:01 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <EF8D308BE33AF54D8934DF26520252D304901693@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <EF8D308BE33AF54D8934DF26520252D304901693@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 27 May 2006, at 21:34, Puthiyaparambil, Aravindh wrote:
Dom0 needs a much bigger floor of 192M. I think this is where KY came up with the 192M number. I know this will cause problems on machines coming
up with dom0_mem<192M.
That being the case (which it certainly is) it is pretty obvious that a floor of 192M is not suitable in all situations.
Both these options will break xm-test. So how do you want to proceed?
If there isn't a suitable static minimum which prevents OOM death on most systems without also impacting the useful lower range of ballooning on other systems then I think we'll have to wait for someone to implement a more dynamic scheme (e.g., by hooking off the OOM/low-memory paths, or by slowly allocating memory only when we can see a reasonable amount of pages available on the free lists). I'm rather doubtful that a really good static estimate can be derived, since it depends so much on particular details of kernel memory usage. Given the results of these experiments I'm tempted to remove the 2% minimum that is already in the tree -- vendors can make their own patch if they have a better idea of what works for their particular kernel setups.
 -- Keir
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Previous by Date: [Xen-devel] RE: [PATCH][BALLOON] Fix minimum target , Puthiyaparambil, Aravindh
Next by Date: Re: [Xen-devel] RE: [Xen-changelog] [PAE] Allow pgdirs above 4GB for paravirt guests. , Keir Fraser
Previous by Thread: [Xen-devel] RE: [PATCH][BALLOON] Fix minimum target , Puthiyaparambil, Aravindh
Next by Thread: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH][BALLOON] Fix minimum target , Ky Srinivasan
Indexes: [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]

Copyright ©, Citrix Systems Inc. All rights reserved. Legal and Privacy
Citrix This site is hosted by Citrix

AltStyle によって変換されたページ (->オリジナル) /