Re: [Xen-devel] Kernel 3.11 / 3.12 OOM killer and Xen ballooning

[Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On February 3, 2014 4:49:12 AM EST, Daniel Kiper <daniel.kiper@xxxxxxxxxx> 
wrote:
>Hi,
>
>On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 11:56:54AM -0500, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 02:45:24PM +0000, James Dingwall wrote:
>> > Bob Liu wrote:
>> > >On 01/29/2014 01:15 AM, James Dingwall wrote:
>> > >>Bob Liu wrote:
>> > >>>I have made a patch by reserving extra 10% of original total
>memory, by
>> > >>>this way I think we can make the system much more reliably in
>all cases.
>> > >>>Could you please have a test? You don't need to set
>> > >>>selfballoon_reserved_mb by yourself any more.
>> > >>I have to say that with this patch the situation has definitely
>> > >>improved.  I have been running it with 3.12.[78] and 3.13 and
>pushing it
>> > >>quite hard for the last 10 days or so.  Unfortunately yesterday I
>got an
>> > >Good news!
>> > >
>> > >>OOM during a compile (link) of webkit-gtk.  I think your patch is
>part
>> > >>of the solution but I'm not sure if the other bit is simply to be
>more
>> > >>generous with the guest memory allocation or something else. 
>Having
>> > >>tested with memory = 512  and no tmem I get an OOM with the same
>> > >>compile, with memory = 1024 and no tmem the compile completes ok
>(both
>> > >>cases without maxmem).  As my domains are usually started with
>memory =
>> > >>512 and maxmem = 1024 it seems that there should be sufficient
>with my
>
>Hmmm... James, how do you build webkit-gtk? Just simple "make" or "make
>-j"?
>Could you confirm that webkit-gtk in any "subjobs" do not use "make
>-j"?
>
>> > >But I think from the beginning tmem/balloon driver can't expand
>guest
>> > >memory from size 'memory' to 'maxmem' automatically.
>> > I am carrying this patch for libxl (4.3.1) because maxmem wasn't
>> > being honoured.
>
>James, what do you mean by "maxmem wasn't being honoured"?
>
>> Daniel,
>>
>> Weren't you working on a similar patch? Do you recall what happend to
>it?
>
>Yep, and it was not applied because it has not been so mature.
>Additionally,
>this patch is part of bigger puzzle. I have it on my todo list but I
>would
>like to finish EFI stuff first. However, if you wish I could back to
>this
>work (if it is more important then EFI right now).

No - EFI is paramount. I was wondering if you had posted some patches in the 
past that triggered a discussion about this? Perhaps James can pick up the work 
and make it mature?
>
>Daniel



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