[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 3/3] tools: introduce parameter max_wp_ram_ranges.
- To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- From: "Yu, Zhang" <yu.c.zhang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2016 23:19:46 +0800
- Cc: kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx, wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx, ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx, stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, Paul.Durrant@xxxxxxxxxx, zhiyuan.lv@xxxxxxxxx, keir@xxxxxxx
- Delivery-date: Tue, 02 Feb 2016 15:24:56 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xen.org>
On 2/2/2016 11:21 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 02.02.16 at 16:00, <yu.c.zhang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The limit of 4G is to avoid the data missing from uint64 to uint32
assignment. And I can accept the 8K limit for XenGT in practice.
After all, it is vGPU page tables we are trying to trap and emulate,
not normal page frames.
And I guess the reason that one domain exhausting Xen's memory can
affect another domain is because rangeset uses Xen heap, instead of the
per-domain memory. So what about we use a 8K limit by now for XenGT,
and in the future, if a per-domain memory allocation solution for
rangeset is ready, we do need to limit the rangeset size. Does this
sounds more acceptable?
The lower the limit the better (but no matter how low the limit
it won't make this a pretty thing). Anyway I'd still like to wait
for what Ian may further say on this.
OK then. :)
Ian, do you have any suggestions?
Thanks
Yu
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
