[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [Xen-devel] Error restoring DomU when using GPLPV
- To: "Keir Fraser" <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- From: "James Harper" <james.harper@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 21:34:46 +1000
- Cc: Joshua West <jwest@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 04:35:21 -0700
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
- Thread-index: AcoUog43ZhCRzTxFSPuGfTBNvaTQKgAAoXawAAfYLBAAAY5aQAADuI5wAADcjpYAATfpwAABGxh/AAAxIVAAAewVowAAaOmQAADHX0gAARYCgA==
- Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] Error restoring DomU when using GPLPV
> On 04/08/2009 11:40, "James Harper" <james.harper@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Oh yes, there is no direct opposite of add_to_physmap... But I
> >> decrease_reservation will work okay in this case, fortunately.
> > Given that I'm not going to use the grant table subsequent to
> > them I'll probably get away with it, but does
> > XENMEM_decrease_reservation actually tell xen that the pages are no
> > longer actually part of the grant table?
> No, for a xenheap page the page won't actually get freed. Xen keeps a
> reference to them until the domain is finally destroyed.
> Regarding the Linux PV-on-HVM drivers - they may have the same issue.
> PV guests do not as they have a gnttab_suspend() function called
> suspend callback (and for subtle reasons xc_domain_save can detect and
> save Xenheap pages for a full PV guests anyway - because it can see
> table in that case).
> Like I said before -- unmapping the gnttab pages I think will not help
> for live migration, but I suppose it is a reasonable thing to do
> live migration I think xc_domain_save needs t get a bit smarter about
> Xenheap pages in HVM guests.
Understood. Do you have any idea about why it worked fine under 3.3.x
but not 3.4.x?
Xen-devel mailing list