Re: [Xen-devel] libxl: error: libxl.c:2150:libxl_set_memory_target new target 0 for dom0 is below the minimum threshold

[Teck Choon Giam <giamteckchoon@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 7:34 PM, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-11-23 at 11:30 +0000, Teck Choon Giam wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 7:07 PM, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> 
>> wrote:
>> > On Wed, 2011-11-23 at 10:56 +0000, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 22 Nov 2011, Teck Choon Giam wrote:
>> >> > >> >> That means default value changed if it is unset for autoballoon?
>> >> > >> >> Original one is commented with #autoballoon = 1 in 
>> >> > >> >> /etc/xen/xl.conf so
>> >> > >> >> it is unset I guess so the default value for autoballoon for c/s 
>> >> > >> >> 23110
>> >> > >> >> is autoballoon=0 where c/s 23190 is autoballoon=1? ÃÆ?Ãâà Just 
>> >> > >> >> some
>> >> > >> >> guessing... ...
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Autoballoon and dom0_mem are incompatible.
>> >> > > I don't think there are any relevant differences between 23110 and 
>> >> > > 23190
>> >> > > on xen-unstable, maybe you used to start dom0 without dom0_mem before?
>> >> >
>> >> > Nope... all my servers will always have those dom0_mem set. ÂIt is
>> >> > from xen-4.1-testing not xen-unstable for the two changeset.
>> >>
>> >> I still cannot see anything in that range. However as I said before, it
>> >> is expected that with dom0_mem set autoballoon needs to be disabled.
>> >
>> > We still haven't seen the full node IDs of the changesets which I asked
>> > for so it is not obvious that we are actually looking at the same range
>> > of changesets...
>>
>> Sorry, I am actually not sure what ID you are asking :(
>>
>> Changesets details as below:
>>
>> changeset: Â 23110:4d5c76248de3
>
> The "23110" bit here is only locally relevant to the repo you are
> looking at so you cannot reliably identify a changeset to someone else
> using that number. Only the "4d5c76248de3" is a global identifier and
> can therefore be exchanged.

Understood :)

>
>> user: Â Â Â ÂRoger Pau Monne <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> date: Â Â Â ÂSat Jul 23 09:01:25 2011 +0100
>> summary: Â Â xend: remove PCI device listing from NetBSD, since it's Linux
>>
>> changeset: Â 23190:5a00ccfc6391
>> user: Â Â Â ÂStefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> date: Â Â Â ÂFri Nov 18 13:38:05 2011 +0000
>> summary: Â Â x86: re-inject emulated level pirqs in PV on HVM guests
>> if still asserted
>
>
> Unfortunately I still don't see anything relevant between these
> changesets so I've no idea why this seems to be a new issue. Are you
> _positive_ that you didn't change anything else about your system
> configuration on upgrade?

I don't change settings once it is deployed and in production use for
xen servers.  In fact, all will be identical just the amount of memory
to allocate to dom0 are different depending on the server total amount
of RAM.

>
>> >> Maybe it is worth documenting this somewhere, any suggestions where?
>> >
>> > xl man page? Perhaps we also need a separate /etc/xl.cfg (or whatever
>> > the path is) page?
>>
>> Shouldn't it be xl.conf instead of xl.cfg? Âxl man page will helps a
>> lot especially for those of us switching from xm to xl.
>
> It should match the actual filename which does appear to be xl.conf not
> cfg.

Oh ok.  In fact, if got additional like man xl.conf will be better :p

>
>>
>> >
>> > If there is anywhere on the wiki which recommends dom0_mem= (and there
>> > should be) it should simultaneously mention this setting. As should any
>> > "getting started" page.
>> >
>> > On the other hand I'm not sure why autoballoon and dom0_mem play so
>> > badly together. Surely if dom0_mem is used autoballon should just see
>> > that there is plenty of free RAM in the system and not do anything?
>> >
>> > Ian.
>>
>> From this experience, at least I learn more about xl and what
>> configuration should be set for my usage/environment. ÂLike for
>> example, when I used xl create hvmdomain... those iptables forward
>> rule chains are created as well for its vif and tap but when xl
>> trigger hvmdomain power or xl shutdown hvmdomain... those iptables
>> forward rule chains are still left intact :( ÂThis isn't big issue for
>> me as I have created script to remove those though. ÂAnyway, I will
>> bring this up when you guys going to release xen-4.2-rc... ... as this
>> thread is not for me I know.
>
> That sounds like a bug, there's no need to wait for an rc release to
> report a bug.

I think I reported once before... let see... here:
http://old-list-archives.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2011-04/msg00972.html

Thanks.

Kindest regards,
Giam Teck Choon

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel