[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] Xen ballooning interface
- To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>
- From: Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2018 09:47:42 +0200
- Autocrypt: addr=jgross@xxxxxxxx; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= xsBNBFOMcBYBCACgGjqjoGvbEouQZw/ToiBg9W98AlM2QHV+iNHsEs7kxWhKMjrioyspZKOB ycWxw3ie3j9uvg9EOB3aN4xiTv4qbnGiTr3oJhkB1gsb6ToJQZ8uxGq2kaV2KL9650I1SJve dYm8Of8Zd621lSmoKOwlNClALZNew72NjJLEzTalU1OdT7/i1TXkH09XSSI8mEQ/ouNcMvIJ NwQpd369y9bfIhWUiVXEK7MlRgUG6MvIj6Y3Am/BBLUVbDa4+gmzDC9ezlZkTZG2t14zWPvx XP3FAp2pkW0xqG7/377qptDmrk42GlSKN4z76ELnLxussxc7I2hx18NUcbP8+uty4bMxABEB AAHNHkp1ZXJnZW4gR3Jvc3MgPGpncm9zc0BzdXNlLmRlPsLAeQQTAQIAIwUCU4xw6wIbAwcL CQgHAwIBBhUIAgkKCwQWAgMBAh4BAheAAAoJELDendYovxMvi4UH/Ri+OXlObzqMANruTd4N zmVBAZgx1VW6jLc8JZjQuJPSsd/a+bNr3BZeLV6lu4Pf1Yl2Log129EX1KWYiFFvPbIiq5M5 kOXTO8Eas4CaScCvAZ9jCMQCgK3pFqYgirwTgfwnPtxFxO/F3ZcS8jovza5khkSKL9JGq8Nk czDTruQ/oy0WUHdUr9uwEfiD9yPFOGqp4S6cISuzBMvaAiC5YGdUGXuPZKXLpnGSjkZswUzY d9BVSitRL5ldsQCg6GhDoEAeIhUC4SQnT9SOWkoDOSFRXZ+7+WIBGLiWMd+yKDdRG5RyP/8f 3tgGiB6cyuYfPDRGsELGjUaTUq3H2xZgIPfOwE0EU4xwFgEIAMsx+gDjgzAY4H1hPVXgoLK8 B93sTQFN9oC6tsb46VpxyLPfJ3T1A6Z6MVkLoCejKTJ3K9MUsBZhxIJ0hIyvzwI6aYJsnOew cCiCN7FeKJ/oA1RSUemPGUcIJwQuZlTOiY0OcQ5PFkV5YxMUX1F/aTYXROXgTmSaw0aC1Jpo w7Ss1mg4SIP/tR88/d1+HwkJDVW1RSxC1PWzGizwRv8eauImGdpNnseneO2BNWRXTJumAWDD pYxpGSsGHXuZXTPZqOOZpsHtInFyi5KRHSFyk2Xigzvh3b9WqhbgHHHE4PUVw0I5sIQt8hJq 5nH5dPqz4ITtCL9zjiJsExHuHKN3NZsAEQEAAcLAXwQYAQIACQUCU4xwFgIbDAAKCRCw3p3W KL8TL0P4B/9YWver5uD/y/m0KScK2f3Z3mXJhME23vGBbMNlfwbr+meDMrJZ950CuWWnQ+d+ Ahe0w1X7e3wuLVODzjcReQ/v7b4JD3wwHxe+88tgB9byc0NXzlPJWBaWV01yB2/uefVKryAf AHYEd0gCRhx7eESgNBe3+YqWAQawunMlycsqKa09dBDL1PFRosF708ic9346GLHRc6Vj5SRA UTHnQqLetIOXZm3a2eQ1gpQK9MmruO86Vo93p39bS1mqnLLspVrL4rhoyhsOyh0Hd28QCzpJ wKeHTd0MAWAirmewHXWPco8p1Wg+V+5xfZzuQY0f4tQxvOpXpt4gQ1817GQ5/Ed/wsDtBBgB CAAgFiEEhRJncuj2BJSl0Jf3sN6d1ii/Ey8FAlrd8NACGwIAgQkQsN6d1ii/Ey92IAQZFggA HRYhBFMtsHpB9jjzHji4HoBcYbtP2GO+BQJa3fDQAAoJEIBcYbtP2GO+TYsA/30H/0V6cr/W V+J/FCayg6uNtm3MJLo4rE+o4sdpjjsGAQCooqffpgA+luTT13YZNV62hAnCLKXH9n3+ZAgJ RtAyDWk1B/0SMDVs1wxufMkKC3Q/1D3BYIvBlrTVKdBYXPxngcRoqV2J77lscEvkLNUGsu/z W2pf7+P3mWWlrPMJdlbax00vevyBeqtqNKjHstHatgMZ2W0CFC4hJ3YEetuRBURYPiGzuJXU pAd7a7BdsqWC4o+GTm5tnGrCyD+4gfDSpkOT53S/GNO07YkPkm/8J4OBoFfgSaCnQ1izwgJQ jIpcG2fPCI2/hxf2oqXPYbKr1v4Z1wthmoyUgGN0LPTIm+B5vdY82wI5qe9uN6UOGyTH2B3p hRQUWqCwu2sqkI3LLbTdrnyDZaixT2T0f4tyF5Lfs+Ha8xVMhIyzNb1byDI5FKCb
- Cc: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx>, George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx>, Roger Pau Monne <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Tue, 14 Aug 2018 07:47:54 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
- Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
On 14/08/18 09:34, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 14.08.18 at 09:19, <jgross@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 14/08/18 09:02, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>> On 13.08.18 at 17:44, <jgross@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On 13/08/18 17:29, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 13.08.18 at 16:20, <jgross@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>> On 13/08/18 15:54, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 13.08.18 at 15:06, <jgross@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Suggested new interface
>>>>>>>> -----------------------
>>>>>>>> Hypercalls, memory map(s) and ACPI tables should stay the same (for
>>>>>>>> compatibility reasons or because they are architectural interfaces).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As the main confusion in the current interface is related to the
>>>>>>>> specification of the target memory size this part of the interface
>>>>>>>> should be changed: specifying the size of the ballooned area instead
>>>>>>>> is much clearer and will be the same for all guest types (no firmware
>>>>>>>> memory or magic additions involved).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But isn't this backwards? The balloon size is a piece of information
>>>>>>> internal to the guest. Why should the outside world know or care?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Instead of specifying an absolute value to reach you'd specify how much
>>>>>> memory the guest should stay below its maximum. I think this is a valid
>>>>>> approach.
>>>>>
>>>>> But with you vNUMA model there's no single such value, and nothing
>>>>> like a "maximum" (which would need to be per virtual node afaics).
>>>>
>>>> With vNUMA there is a current value of memory per node supplied by the
>>>> tools and a maximum per node can be caclulated the same way.
>>>
>>> Can it? If so, I must be overlooking some accounting done
>>> somewhere. I'm only aware of a global maximum.
>>
>> The tools set the vnuma information for the guest. How do they do this
>> without knowing the memory size per vnuma node?
>
> That's the current (initial) size, not the maximum.
Which is the same in the current implementation:
libxl__vnuma_config_check() will fail if the memory of all vnuma nodes
won't sum up to the max memory of the domain.
Juergen
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
|
