[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 for-4.6] libxl_set_memory_target: retain the same maxmem offset on top of the current target
On Tue, 2 Dec 2014, Don Slutz wrote: > On 12/02/14 09:59, Don Slutz wrote: > > On 12/02/14 09:26, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > > On Tue, 2 Dec 2014, Don Slutz wrote: > > > > On 12/02/14 06:53, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > > > > In libxl_set_memory_target when setting the new maxmem, retain the > > > > > same > > > > > offset on top of the current target. The offset includes memory > > > > > allocated by QEMU for rom files. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini<stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > Changes in v2: > > > > > - call libxl_domain_info instead of libxl_dominfo_init; > > > > > - call libxl_domain_info before retry_transaction. > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl.c b/tools/libxl/libxl.c > > > > > index de23fec..569a32a 100644 > > > > > --- a/tools/libxl/libxl.c > > > > > +++ b/tools/libxl/libxl.c > > > > > @@ -4694,6 +4694,9 @@ int libxl_set_memory_target(libxl_ctx *ctx, > > > > > uint32_t > > > > > domid, > > > > > char *uuid; > > > > > xs_transaction_t t; > > > > > + if (libxl_domain_info(ctx, &ptr, domid) < 0) > > > > > + goto out_no_transaction; > > > > > + > > > > > retry_transaction: > > > > > t = xs_transaction_start(ctx->xsh); > > > > > @@ -4767,10 +4770,9 @@ retry_transaction: > > > > > "%s/memory/videoram", dompath)); > > > > > videoram = videoram_s ? atoi(videoram_s) : 0; > > > > > - if (enforce) { > > > > > - memorykb = new_target_memkb; > > > > > - rc = xc_domain_setmaxmem(ctx->xch, domid, memorykb + > > > > > - LIBXL_MAXMEM_CONSTANT); > > > > > + if (enforce && new_target_memkb > 0) { > > > > > + memorykb = ptr.max_memkb - current_target_memkb + > > > > > new_target_memkb; > > My testing shows that this should be: > > memorykb = ptr.max_memkb - (current_target_memkb + videoram) + > new_target_memkb; > > As far as I can tell the reason for this is that memory/target (aka > current_target_memkb) was set based on: > > new_target_memkb -= videoram; Thank you very much for testing and the suggestion! I think that the right fix for this is to remove videoram from new_target_memkb earlier and only when the new target is absolute, otherwise we risk removing videoram twice (in case the new target is relative). I wonder why we didn't notice this before. diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl.c b/tools/libxl/libxl.c index d5d5204..4803cc4 100644 --- a/tools/libxl/libxl.c +++ b/tools/libxl/libxl.c @@ -4744,13 +4744,17 @@ retry_transaction: goto out; } + videoram_s = libxl__xs_read(gc, t, libxl__sprintf(gc, + "%s/memory/videoram", dompath)); + videoram = videoram_s ? atoi(videoram_s) : 0; + if (relative) { if (target_memkb < 0 && abs(target_memkb) > current_target_memkb) new_target_memkb = 0; else new_target_memkb = current_target_memkb + target_memkb; } else - new_target_memkb = target_memkb; + new_target_memkb = target_memkb - videoram; if (new_target_memkb > memorykb) { LIBXL__LOG(ctx, LIBXL__LOG_ERROR, "memory_dynamic_max must be less than or equal to" @@ -4766,9 +4770,6 @@ retry_transaction: abort_transaction = 1; goto out; } - videoram_s = libxl__xs_read(gc, t, libxl__sprintf(gc, - "%s/memory/videoram", dompath)); - videoram = videoram_s ? atoi(videoram_s) : 0; if (enforce && new_target_memkb > 0) { memorykb = ptr.max_memkb - current_target_memkb + new_target_memkb; @@ -4782,7 +4783,6 @@ retry_transaction: } } - new_target_memkb -= videoram; rc = xc_domain_set_pod_target(ctx->xch, domid, new_target_memkb / 4, NULL, NULL, NULL); if (rc != 0) { _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |