On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 04:28:00PM +0100, Wei Liu wrote:
[...]
> 2. Libxl record that in toolstack save path.
> 3. Remote end calls xc_domain_setmaxmem in toolstack restore path.
Unfortunately toolstack restore is called after
libxl__xc_domain_restore so it cannot be used to solve our problem.
We
On Thu, 2015-06-04 at 16:28 +0100, Wei Liu wrote:
> An alternative we came up with during our IRL discussion.
>
> 1. QEMU writes the size of additional memory in xenstore.
Above is orthogonal to below I think. You existing patch could be
reimplemented in terms of the below, while the above is pot
On Tue, Jun 02, 2015 at 06:40:56PM +0100, Wei Liu wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 02, 2015 at 05:11:02PM +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> > On 02/06/15 16:49, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2015-06-02 at 15:08 +0100, Wei Liu wrote:
> > > [...]
> > >>> So here is a proof of concept patch to record and honour t
On Thu, 2015-06-04 at 10:32 +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 04/06/15 10:26, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Thu, 2015-06-04 at 10:14 +0100, Wei Liu wrote:
> >> The main objection is that we shouldn't call xc_domain_setmaxmem in the
> >> middle of a migration stream.
> > In the middle of an _xc_ migrati
On 04/06/15 10:26, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-06-04 at 10:14 +0100, Wei Liu wrote:
>> The main objection is that we shouldn't call xc_domain_setmaxmem in the
>> middle of a migration stream.
> In the middle of an _xc_ migration stream.
>
> This seems like the sort of thing it would be OK to
On Thu, 2015-06-04 at 10:14 +0100, Wei Liu wrote:
> The main objection is that we shouldn't call xc_domain_setmaxmem in the
> middle of a migration stream.
In the middle of an _xc_ migration stream.
This seems like the sort of thing it would be OK to have in a (to be
introduced) libxl stream (whi
On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 02:22:25PM +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Wei Liu wrote:
> > Previous discussion at [0].
> >
> > For the benefit of discussion, we refer to max_memkb inside hypervisor
> > as hv_max_memkb (name subject to improvement). That's the maximum numbe
On 06/03/15 09:53, George Dunlap wrote:
> On 06/03/2015 02:32 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 03/06/15 14:22, George Dunlap wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Wei Liu wrote:
Previous discussion at [0].
For the benefit of discussion, we refer to max_memkb inside hypervisor
>>>
On 06/03/2015 02:32 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 03/06/15 14:22, George Dunlap wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Wei Liu wrote:
>>> Previous discussion at [0].
>>>
>>> For the benefit of discussion, we refer to max_memkb inside hypervisor
>>> as hv_max_memkb (name subject to improvement).
On 03/06/15 14:22, George Dunlap wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Wei Liu wrote:
>> Previous discussion at [0].
>>
>> For the benefit of discussion, we refer to max_memkb inside hypervisor
>> as hv_max_memkb (name subject to improvement). That's the maximum number
>> of memory a domain can
On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Wei Liu wrote:
> Previous discussion at [0].
>
> For the benefit of discussion, we refer to max_memkb inside hypervisor
> as hv_max_memkb (name subject to improvement). That's the maximum number
> of memory a domain can use.
Why don't we try to use "memory" for vir
On 06/02/2015 11:49 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Tue, 2015-06-02 at 15:08 +0100, Wei Liu wrote:
[...]
So here is a proof of concept patch to record and honour that value
during migration. A new field is added in IDL. Note that we don't
provide xl level config option for it and mandate it to be
On Tue, Jun 02, 2015 at 05:11:02PM +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 02/06/15 16:49, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Tue, 2015-06-02 at 15:08 +0100, Wei Liu wrote:
> > [...]
> >>> So here is a proof of concept patch to record and honour that value
> >>> during migration. A new field is added in IDL. Not
On Tue, Jun 02, 2015 at 04:49:09PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-06-02 at 15:08 +0100, Wei Liu wrote:
> [...]
> > > So here is a proof of concept patch to record and honour that value
> > > during migration. A new field is added in IDL. Note that we don't
> > > provide xl level config
On 02/06/15 16:49, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-06-02 at 15:08 +0100, Wei Liu wrote:
> [...]
>>> So here is a proof of concept patch to record and honour that value
>>> during migration. A new field is added in IDL. Note that we don't
>>> provide xl level config option for it and mandate it
On Tue, 2015-06-02 at 15:08 +0100, Wei Liu wrote:
[...]
> > So here is a proof of concept patch to record and honour that value
> > during migration. A new field is added in IDL. Note that we don't
> > provide xl level config option for it and mandate it to be default value
> > during domain creat
I fat-fingered Andrew's email address. Really CC him this time.
On Tue, Jun 02, 2015 at 03:05:07PM +0100, Wei Liu wrote:
> Previous discussion at [0].
>
> For the benefit of discussion, we refer to max_memkb inside hypervisor
> as hv_max_memkb (name subject to improvement). That's the maximum num
17 matches
Mail list logo
