[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] Three Xenpaging design questions
On Wed, Oct 02, Gage Eads wrote: > 1. file_op() vs. pread() and pwrite(): is there any reason file_op is used > instead of pread and pwrite? Just curious. Maybe the original author was not aware of them? If there is a benefit to switch, submit a patch. > I bring this up because I'd like to experiment with different policies. Are > there any reasons (or flaws in my reasoning) why I shouldn't fix the > identified > issues with the policy abstractoin? This depends one the workload within the guest. IMO its not predictable what pages a guest will touch in the future, so any choice done by xenpaging is good. One thing that was suggested is to track the guest page tables and skip such gfns. > 3. memory/target-tot_pages: from the name, one would assume this value sets a > limit of the number of memory pages in a VM. Specifically, the number of 4 KB > pages in the VM. Instead, target-tot_pages is a memory limit in KiB. I found > this fairly misleading, but perhaps I am in the minority. Is there any > interest > in either renaming this value or removing the KiB to pages conversion so that > its behavior more accurately reflects its name? This property tries to follow other memory properties like maxmem. But the whole logic may not be consistent. Since this property is not used by the tools yet, we can likely change it until libxl gets a better guest memory handling. Maybe such property should describe an amount of memory like "888MB". Olaf _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |