[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] Possible regression: XEN 4.0.0 total_memory decrease
>>> Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 16.04.10 19:37 >>> >On 16/04/2010 08:53, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>>> Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 15.04.10 20:23 >>> >>> I've fixed this regression as xen-unstable:21190 and xen-4.0-testing:21114. >>> The fix will appear in Xen 4.0.1. >> >> That seems wrong to me - I specifically changed the accounting so >> that pieces not used from the E820 map (which can no longer be cut >> off in e820.c, as that code doesn't know *where* to cut off) won't >> get reported as available memory. The real question is where (for >> the non-cut-off case) the two calculations differ. > >boot_e820 has chunks cut out of it for stashing kexec stuff, as well as all >the multiboot modules. The value thereby obtained is just confusing to users >who think we've binned possibly 100s of megabytes (if they run a big >initrd). The piece cut off for kexec imo shouldn't be counted as (usable) system RAM; the piece for the multiboot modules certainly should, but perhaps it would then be better to account for that explicitly instead of reporting a possibly much higher value than is actually available at runtime? Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |