|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [XEN PATCH for-4.13 5/6] libxl: Move shadow_memkb and iommu_memkb defaulting into libxl
On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 04:17:06PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> @@ -862,6 +864,30 @@ static void domcreate_destruction_cb(libxl__egc *egc,
> libxl__domain_destroy_state *dds,
> int rc);
>
> +static _Bool ok_to_default_memkb_in_create(libxl__gc *gc)
Is there a reason to use _Bool instead of `bool'? It would be the first
_Bool in libxl.
> +{
> + /*
> + * This is a fudge. We are trying to find whether the caller
> + * calls the old version of libxl_domain_need_memory. If they do
> + * then, because it only gets the b_info, and because it can't
> + * update the b_info (because it's const), it will base its
> + * calculations on defaulting shadow_memkb and iommu_memkb to 0
> + * In that case we probably shouldn't default them differently
> + * during libxl_domain_create.
> + *
> + * The result is that the behaviour with old callers is the same
> + * as in 4.13: no additional memory is allocated for shadow and
> + * iommu (unless the caller set shadow_memkb, eg from a call to
> + * libxl_get_required_shadow_memory).
> + */
> + return CTX->libxl_domain_need_memory_0x041200_called &&
> + !CTX->libxl_domain_need_memory_called;
I think the logic here is inverted.
With this patch applied, we have:
xl
calls libxl_domain_need_memory()
libxl__domain_config_setdefault()
because shadow_memkb is default and that function return 0
then shadow_memkb is still default
create_domain()
libxl__domain_config_setdefault()
same thing, shadow_memkb is untouch, so still default
libxl__domain_build_info_setdefault()
shadow_memkb is default
-> shadow_memkb = 0
This is different what is expected by the commit message.
> For xl, no change. The code moves from xl to libxl.
Instead, if xl calls libxl_domain_need_memory_0x041200():
create_domain()
libxl__domain_config_setdefault()
if shadow_memkb is default; ok_to_default_memkb_in_create is 1
so shadow_memkb is set to a value different that the one
calculated by need_memory_0x04100.
Or did I miss something?
--
Anthony PERARD
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |