[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] RE: Ballooning up
On Tue, 2010-09-14 at 17:42 +0100, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > On 09/14/2010 02:07 AM, Ian Campbell wrote: > > On Mon, 2010-09-13 at 23:51 +0100, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > >> On 09/13/2010 02:17 PM, Dan Magenheimer wrote: > >>>> As a side-effect, it also works for dom0. If you set dom0_mem on the > >>>> Xen command line, then nr_pages is limited to that value, but the > >>>> kernel > >>>> can still see the system's real E820 map, and therefore adds all the > >>>> system's memory to its own balloon driver, potentially allowing dom0 to > >>>> expand up to take all physical memory. > >>>> > >>>> However, this may caused bad side-effects if your system memory is much > >>>> larger than your dom0_mem, especially if you use a 32-bit dom0. I may > >>>> need to add a kernel command line option to limit the max initial > >>>> balloon size to mitigate this... > >>> I would call this dom0 functionality a bug. I think both Citrix > >>> and Oracle use dom0_mem as a normal boot option for every > >>> installation and, while I think both employ heuristics to choose > >>> a larger dom0_mem for larger physical memory, I don't think it > >>> grows large enough for, say, >256GB physical memory, to accommodate > >>> the necessarily large number of page tables. > >>> > >>> So, I'd vote for NOT allowing dom0 to balloon up to physical > >>> memory if dom0_mem is specified, and possibly a kernel command > >>> line option that allows it to grow beyond. Or, possibly, no > >>> option and never allow dom0 memory to grow beyond dom0_mem > >>> unless (possibly) it grows with hot-plug. > >> Yes, its a bit of a problem. The trouble is that the kernel can't > >> really distinguish the two cases; either way, it sees a Xen-supplied > >> xen_start_info->nr_pages as the amount of initial memory available, and > >> an E820 table referring to more RAM beyond that. > >> > >> I guess there are three options: > >> > >> 1. add a "xen_maxmem" (or something) kernel parameter to override > >> space specified in the E820 table > >> 2. ignore E820 if its a privileged domain > > As it stands I don't think it is currently possible to boot any domain 0 > > kernel pre-ballooned other than by using the native mem= option. > > > > I think the Right Thing to do would be for privileged domains to combine > > the results of XENMEM_machine_memory_map (real e820) and > > XENMEM_memory_map (pseudo-physical "e820") by clamping the result of > > XENMEM_machine_memory_map at the maximum given in XENMEM_memory_map (or > > taking some sort of union). > > Does the dom0 domain builder bother to set a pseudo-phys E820? I thought the default with XENMEM_memory_map was to construct a fake 0..startinfo->nr_pages size e820, which would have been sensible, but it turns out that's not what happens. In fact XENMEM_memory_map will return ENOSYS in that case and guests are expected to construct the fake e820 themselves. > > However, although I think that the Right Thing, I don't think having > > domain 0 cut off its e820 at nr_pages unless overridden by mem= would be > > a problem in practice and it certainly wins in terms of complexity of > > reconciling XENMEM_memory_map and XENMEM_machine_memory_map. > > Indeed. I think adding general 32x limit between base and max size will > prevent a completely unusable system, and then just suggest using mem= > to control that more precisely (esp for dom0). Sounds reasonable. Ian. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |