On 19/02/14 09:54, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Tue, 2014-02-18 at 18:46 +0000, David Vrabel wrote: >> On 18/02/14 17:40, Ian Campbell wrote: >>> On Mon, 2014-01-20 at 21:24 +0000, Zoltan Kiss wrote: >>>> >>>> @@ -344,8 +346,26 @@ struct xenvif *xenvif_alloc(struct device *parent, >>>> domid_t domid, >>>> vif->pending_prod = MAX_PENDING_REQS; >>>> for (i = 0; i < MAX_PENDING_REQS; i++) >>>> vif->pending_ring[i] = i; >>>> - for (i = 0; i < MAX_PENDING_REQS; i++) >>>> - vif->mmap_pages[i] = NULL; >>>> + spin_lock_init(&vif->dealloc_lock); >>>> + spin_lock_init(&vif->response_lock); >>>> + /* If ballooning is disabled, this will consume real memory, so you >>>> + * better enable it. >>> >>> Almost no one who would be affected by this is going to read this >>> comment. And it doesn't just require enabling ballooning, but actually >>> booting with some maxmem "slack" to leave space. >>> >>> Classic-xen kernels used to add 8M of slop to the physical address space >>> to leave a suitable pool for exactly this sort of thing. I never liked >>> that but perhaps it should be reconsidered (or at least raised as a >>> possibility with the core-Xen Linux guys). >> >> I plan to fix the balloon memory hotplug stuff to do the right thing > > Which is for alloc_xenballoon_pages to hotplug a new empty region, > rather than inflating the balloon if it doesn't have enough pages to > satisfy the allocation?
Yes. David -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
