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

[Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> From: Dan Magenheimer
> Subject: RE: [RFC/PATCH v2] XENMEM_claim_pages (subop of existing) hypercall
> 
> > From: Andres Lagar-Cavilla [mailto:andreslc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH v2] XENMEM_claim_pages (subop of existing) hypercall
> > > 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
> >
> > Little to be baffled at, as per above explanation. And probably a good idea 
> > to cc the author if so.
> >
> > Andres
> >
> > > 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.
> 
>      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Hi Andres (and sorry for the typo in your name earlier in the thread) --
> 
> > ...And probably a good idea to cc the author if so.
> 
> No offense intended, I certainly intended for you to be not just on
> the "Cc" list but on the "To" list of the new thread, but you are too
> quick for me and, due to time constraints, I may not get to that
> new thread until next week (it's a holiday week in the US).  But until
> then... a quick clarification:
> 
> > > 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
> 
> I meant "ever be necessary in the dynamic memory (e.g. tmem) paradigm",
> not the squeezed (or MS -memory-balancing-engine) paradigm, where I can
> at least fathom it.

Hmmm... it appear that, while it might be fun and illuminating,
a new thread is probably not worth our time, as I think the fix
to allow co-existence of XENMEM_claim_pages and the low_mem_virq
code is one additional line.

I'll include it in v7.

Dan


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