Re: [Xen-devel] freemem-slack and large memory environments

[Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 24 Feb 2015, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-02-24 at 16:06 +0000, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > Now that we autodetect the use of dom0_mem and set autoballooning
> > > correctly perhaps we should just revert a39b5bc64?
> > 
> > We could do that and theoretically it makes perfect sense, but it would
> > result in an even bigger waste of memory.
> 
> Would it, even though we now detect dom0_mem usage and do the right
> thing? I thought a39b5bc64 was a workaround for autoballooning=1
> in /etc/xen/xl.conf when dom0 was used.
> 
> 
> > I think we should either introduce an hard upper limit for
> > freemem-slack as Mike suggested, or remove freemem-slack altogether and
> > properly fix any issues caused by lack of memory in the system (properly
> > account memory usage).
> > After all we are just at the beginning of the release cycle, it is the
> > right time to do this.
> 
> I'm all in favour of someone doing this, similarly to
> http://bugs.xenproject.org/xen/bug/23
> 
> Who is going to do that (either one)?

I am OK with sending the patch for both

 
> > 
> > 
> > > Ian.
> > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > It seems that there are two approaches to resolve this:
> > > > > 
> > > > >  - Introduce a hard limit on freemem-slack to avoid unnecessarily 
> > > > > large
> > > > > reservations
> > > > >  - Increase the retry count during domain creation to ensure enough 
> > > > > time is
> > > > > set aside for any cycles spent freeing memory for freemem-slack (on 
> > > > > the test
> > > > > machine, doubling the retry count to 6 is the minimum required)
> > > > > 
> > > > > Which is the best approach (or did I miss something)?
> > > > 
> > > > Sorry - forgot to CC relevant maintainers.
> > > > 
> > > > -Mike
> > > 
> > > 
> 
> 

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