Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC/PATCH v2] XENMEM_claim_pages (subop of existing) hypercall

[Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:JBeulich@xxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 3:36 AM
> To: Dan Magenheimer
> Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Konrad Wilk; ZhigangWang; Keir Fraser; TimDeegan
> Subject: RE: [RFC/PATCH v2] XENMEM_claim_pages (subop of existing) hypercall
> 
> >>> On 15.11.12 at 19:00, Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>  From: Jan Beulich [mailto:JBeulich@xxxxxxxx]
> >> Similarly, but perhaps of lower priority, there is no integration
> >> with the low-mem handling.
> >
> > I'd also consider this lower priority as Olaf and Andre
> > have argued that the claim mechanism is not needed for
> > sharing/paging so the two mechanisms may not
> > be used together, at least for the foreseeable future.
> > So I plan to skip this, unless you change your mind and
> > consider it a showstopper for acceptance.
> 
> Skipping for the initial implementation is likely fine, but that
> shouldn't mean deferring the integration indefinitely. Also,
> I see no close connection between the low-mem feature
> and sharing/paging (apart from Andres working on both).

Fair enough.

After reviewing the thread where low_mem was submitted, I have to admit
that I am a bit baffled as to when the low_mem handling would ever be
necessary.   I suspect it is because the author and I are approaching
memory management from a completely different paradigm (per discussion
in an earlier thread where "claim" was first proposed), so that
is probably better left for the deferred discussion of the
integration.

So since you (Jan) do not consider this (lack of integration with
low_mem) a showstopper for claim, I will set myself a reminder
to initiate a new thread about this later.

Thanks,
Dan



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel