Re: [Xen-devel] Proposed XENMEM_claim_pages hypercall: Analysis of problem and alternate solutions

[Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 2013-01-14 at 23:14 +0000, Dan Magenheimer wrote:
> For the public record, I _partially_ believe #3.  I would restate it
> as: You (and others with the same point-of-view) have a very fixed
> idea of how memory-management should work in the Xen stack.  This
> idea is not really implemented, AFAICT you haven't thought through
> the policy issues, and you haven't yet realized the challenges
> I believe it will present in the context of Oracle's dynamic model
> (since AFAIK you have not understood tmem and selfballooning though
> it is all open source upstream in Xen and Linux).

Putting aside any bias or fixed mindedness the maintainers are not
especially happy with the proposed fix, even within the constraints of
the dynamic model. (It omits to cover various use cases and I think
strikes many as something of a sticking plaster).

Given that I've been trying to suggest an alternative solution which
works within the constraints of you model and happens to have the nice
property of not requiring hypervisor changes. I genuinely think there is
a workable solution to your problem in there, although you are correct
that it mostly just an idea right now.

That said the best suggestion for a solution I've seen so far was Tim's
suggestion that tmem be more tightly integrated with memory allocation
as another step towards the "memory scheduler" idea. So I wouldn't
bother pursuing the maxmem approach further unless the tmem-integration
idea doesn't pan out for some reason.

Ian.



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel