RE: [Xen-devel] Re: Xenheap disappearance: (was: xen_phys_startfor32b)

["Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>]

>>> Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx> 17.01.09 00:16 >>>
>I'm not sure what you are getting at.  Are you saying that
>creating a domain takes (big)MB from domheap, then later
>(little)KB from xenheap, and if we combine domheap and xenheap,
>the tools might launch a domain when available memory is
>greater than (big)MB but smaller than (big)MB+(small)KB,
>and that will result in the tools thinking the domain
>can launch but it won't?  I suppose that's possible,

Yes, that's what I'm trying to say. And I think it's rather likely to happen,
as I frequently see systems with completely empty domain heaps.

>but exceedingly unlikely.  And I think Keir's plan will
>have the same problem.  Sounds like a tools bug, not a
>reason to avoid modernizing Xen memory management.

No, I wasn't making the point to ask for not doing improvements in Xen -
in fact, it's been for a long time that I've been raising the scalability issue
of the limited Xen heap. I was just trying to point out that the Xen change
*must* be accompanied by a tools change in order to be usable in other
than development/test environments.

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel