On 13/07/16 16:28, Ian Jackson wrote:
> David Vrabel writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] xenstored memory leak"):
>> On 13/07/16 14:32, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>> On 13/07/16 15:17, David Vrabel wrote:
>>>> The Linux driver already cleans up open transactions and remo
David Vrabel writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] xenstored memory leak"):
> On 13/07/16 14:32, Juergen Gross wrote:
> > On 13/07/16 15:17, David Vrabel wrote:
> >> The Linux driver already cleans up open transactions and removes watches
> >> when the file handle is r
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 04:09:26PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 13/07/16 15:52, Wei Liu wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 03:25:45PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> >> On 13/07/16 15:07, Wei Liu wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 02:21:38PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 06/07/16 09:31,
On 13/07/16 15:52, Wei Liu wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 03:25:45PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> On 13/07/16 15:07, Wei Liu wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 02:21:38PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 06/07/16 09:31, Juergen Gross wrote:
> While testing some patches for support of bal
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 03:25:45PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 13/07/16 15:07, Wei Liu wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 02:21:38PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> >> On 06/07/16 09:31, Juergen Gross wrote:
> >>> While testing some patches for support of ballooning in Mini-OS by using
> >>> the
On 13/07/16 15:17, David Vrabel wrote:
> On 13/07/16 14:07, Wei Liu wrote:
>>
>> My gut feeling is that xenstored shouldn't have the knowledge to
>> associate a watch with a "process". The concept of a process is only
>> meaningful to OS, which wouldn't work on cross-domain xenstored setup.
>> Mayb
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 02:20:28PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Wei Liu writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] xenstored memory leak"):
> > On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 02:21:38PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> > > qemu as the device model is setting up a xenstore watch for each backend
On 13/07/16 14:32, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 13/07/16 15:17, David Vrabel wrote:
>> On 13/07/16 14:07, Wei Liu wrote:
>>>
>>> My gut feeling is that xenstored shouldn't have the knowledge to
>>> associate a watch with a "process". The concept of a process is only
>>> meaningful to OS, which wouldn'
Juergen Gross writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] xenstored memory leak"):
> On 13/07/16 14:40, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> > On 13/07/16 13:21, Juergen Gross wrote:
> >> I'll post a qemu patch to remove those watches on exit soon.
I don't think this is right. qemu should n
On 13/07/16 15:07, Wei Liu wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 02:21:38PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> On 06/07/16 09:31, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>> While testing some patches for support of ballooning in Mini-OS by using
>>> the xenstore domain I realized that each xl create/destroy pair would
>>> in
On 13/07/16 14:40, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 13/07/16 13:21, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> On 06/07/16 09:31, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>> While testing some patches for support of ballooning in Mini-OS by using
>>> the xenstore domain I realized that each xl create/destroy pair would
>>> increase memory con
Wei Liu writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] xenstored memory leak"):
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 02:21:38PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> > qemu as the device model is setting up a xenstore watch for each backend
> > type it is supporting. Unfortunately those watches are never remove
On 13/07/16 14:07, Wei Liu wrote:
>
> My gut feeling is that xenstored shouldn't have the knowledge to
> associate a watch with a "process". The concept of a process is only
> meaningful to OS, which wouldn't work on cross-domain xenstored setup.
> Maybe the OS xenbus driver should reap all watche
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 02:21:38PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 06/07/16 09:31, Juergen Gross wrote:
> > While testing some patches for support of ballooning in Mini-OS by using
> > the xenstore domain I realized that each xl create/destroy pair would
> > increase memory consumption in Mini-OS
On 13/07/16 13:21, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 06/07/16 09:31, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> While testing some patches for support of ballooning in Mini-OS by using
>> the xenstore domain I realized that each xl create/destroy pair would
>> increase memory consumption in Mini-OS by about 5kB. Wondering wh
On 06/07/16 09:31, Juergen Gross wrote:
> While testing some patches for support of ballooning in Mini-OS by using
> the xenstore domain I realized that each xl create/destroy pair would
> increase memory consumption in Mini-OS by about 5kB. Wondering whether
> this is a xenstore domain only effect
On Wed, Jul 06, 2016 at 09:31:38AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> While testing some patches for support of ballooning in Mini-OS by using
> the xenstore domain I realized that each xl create/destroy pair would
> increase memory consumption in Mini-OS by about 5kB. Wondering whether
> this is a xens
On 06/07/16 14:55, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 06/07/16 15:48, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 06/07/16 08:31, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>> While testing some patches for support of ballooning in Mini-OS by using
>>> the xenstore domain I realized that each xl create/destroy pair would
>>> increase memory con
On 06/07/16 15:48, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 06/07/16 08:31, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> While testing some patches for support of ballooning in Mini-OS by using
>> the xenstore domain I realized that each xl create/destroy pair would
>> increase memory consumption in Mini-OS by about 5kB. Wondering wh
On 06/07/16 08:31, Juergen Gross wrote:
> While testing some patches for support of ballooning in Mini-OS by using
> the xenstore domain I realized that each xl create/destroy pair would
> increase memory consumption in Mini-OS by about 5kB. Wondering whether
> this is a xenstore domain only effect
While testing some patches for support of ballooning in Mini-OS by using
the xenstore domain I realized that each xl create/destroy pair would
increase memory consumption in Mini-OS by about 5kB. Wondering whether
this is a xenstore domain only effect I did the same test with xenstored
and oxenstor
21 matches
Mail list logo
