[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [XEN PATCH for-4.13 5/6] libxl: Move shadow_memkb and iommu_memkb defaulting into libxl
On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 04:17:06PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > @@ -862,6 +864,30 @@ static void domcreate_destruction_cb(libxl__egc *egc, > libxl__domain_destroy_state *dds, > int rc); > > +static _Bool ok_to_default_memkb_in_create(libxl__gc *gc) Is there a reason to use _Bool instead of `bool'? It would be the first _Bool in libxl. > +{ > + /* > + * This is a fudge. We are trying to find whether the caller > + * calls the old version of libxl_domain_need_memory. If they do > + * then, because it only gets the b_info, and because it can't > + * update the b_info (because it's const), it will base its > + * calculations on defaulting shadow_memkb and iommu_memkb to 0 > + * In that case we probably shouldn't default them differently > + * during libxl_domain_create. > + * > + * The result is that the behaviour with old callers is the same > + * as in 4.13: no additional memory is allocated for shadow and > + * iommu (unless the caller set shadow_memkb, eg from a call to > + * libxl_get_required_shadow_memory). > + */ > + return CTX->libxl_domain_need_memory_0x041200_called && > + !CTX->libxl_domain_need_memory_called; I think the logic here is inverted. With this patch applied, we have: xl calls libxl_domain_need_memory() libxl__domain_config_setdefault() because shadow_memkb is default and that function return 0 then shadow_memkb is still default create_domain() libxl__domain_config_setdefault() same thing, shadow_memkb is untouch, so still default libxl__domain_build_info_setdefault() shadow_memkb is default -> shadow_memkb = 0 This is different what is expected by the commit message. > For xl, no change. The code moves from xl to libxl. Instead, if xl calls libxl_domain_need_memory_0x041200(): create_domain() libxl__domain_config_setdefault() if shadow_memkb is default; ok_to_default_memkb_in_create is 1 so shadow_memkb is set to a value different that the one calculated by need_memory_0x04100. Or did I miss something? -- Anthony PERARD _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |