|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC/PATCH v2] XENMEM_claim_pages (subop of existing) hypercall
On Nov 26, 2012, at 1:01 PM, Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> 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. Agreed, just factor in the global unclaimed count into the arithmetic the virq code performs to decide whether to fire. Andres > > I'll include it in v7. > > Dan > _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
 |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |