[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: Thu, 04 Feb 2016 03:34:19 -0700
- Cc: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx>, Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx>, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>, Andrew Cooper <Andrew.Cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Paul Durrant <Paul.Durrant@xxxxxxxxxx>, Stefano Stabellini <Stefano.Stabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>, "zhiyuan.lv@xxxxxxxxx" <zhiyuan.lv@xxxxxxxxx>, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Keir \(Xen.org\)" <keir@xxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Thu, 04 Feb 2016 10:34:37 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xen.org>
>>> On 04.02.16 at 10:38, <yu.c.zhang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> So another question is, if value of this limit really matters, will a
> lower one be more acceptable(the current 256 being not enough)?
If you've carefully read George's replies, a primary aspect is
whether we wouldn't better revert commit f5a32c5b8e
("x86/HVM: differentiate IO/mem resources tracked by ioreq
server"), as with the alternative approach we wouldn't even
need HVMOP_IO_RANGE_WP_MEM afaict. And then the question
you raise would become irrelevant.
The part of the public interface being tools only allows some
freedom in when to do this, but I think it would be a bad idea
to ship 4.7 with this still in if you're not going to pursue this
route.
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
