[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 3/3] tools: introduce parameter max_wp_ram_ranges.
- To: "Zhang Yu" <yu.c.zhang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2016 08:21:54 -0700
- Cc: kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx, wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx, ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx, stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, Paul.Durrant@xxxxxxxxxx, zhiyuan.lv@xxxxxxxxx, keir@xxxxxxx
- Delivery-date: Tue, 02 Feb 2016 15:22:12 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xen.org>
>>> On 02.02.16 at 16:00, <yu.c.zhang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The limit of 4G is to avoid the data missing from uint64 to uint32
> assignment. And I can accept the 8K limit for XenGT in practice.
> After all, it is vGPU page tables we are trying to trap and emulate,
> not normal page frames.
>
> And I guess the reason that one domain exhausting Xen's memory can
> affect another domain is because rangeset uses Xen heap, instead of the
> per-domain memory. So what about we use a 8K limit by now for XenGT,
> and in the future, if a per-domain memory allocation solution for
> rangeset is ready, we do need to limit the rangeset size. Does this
> sounds more acceptable?
The lower the limit the better (but no matter how low the limit
it won't make this a pretty thing). Anyway I'd still like to wait
for what Ian may further say on this.
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
