[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [PATCH RFC] x86+libxl: correct p2m (shadow) memory pool size calculation
On 22.04.2022 13:14, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 12:57:03PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: >> The reference "to shadow the resident processes" is applicable to >> domains (potentially) running in shadow mode only. Adjust the >> calculations accordingly. >> >> In dom0_paging_pages() also take the opportunity and stop open-coding >> DIV_ROUND_UP(). >> >> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> >> --- >> RFC: I'm pretty sure I can't change a public libxl function (deprecated >> or not) like this, but I also don't know how I should go about >> doing so (short of introducing a brand new function and leaving the >> existing one broken). > > You have to play with LIBXL_API_VERSION, see for example: > > 1e3304005e libxl: Make libxl_retrieve_domain_configuration async > >> >> --- a/tools/include/libxl_utils.h >> +++ b/tools/include/libxl_utils.h >> @@ -23,7 +23,10 @@ const >> #endif >> char *libxl_basename(const char *name); /* returns string from strdup */ >> >> -unsigned long libxl_get_required_shadow_memory(unsigned long maxmem_kb, >> unsigned int smp_cpus); >> +unsigned long libxl_get_required_shadow_memory(unsigned long maxmem_kb, >> + unsigned int smp_cpus, >> + libxl_domain_type type, >> + bool hap); > > Iff we are to change this anyway, we might as well rename the > function and introduce a proper > libxl_get_required_{paging,p2m}_memory? > > It seems wrong to have a function explicitly named 'shadow' that takes > a 'hap' parameter. > > If you introduce a new function there's no need to play with the > LIBXL_API_VERSION and you can just add a new LIBXL_HAVE_FOO define. With the original function deprecated, I don't see why I'd need to make a new public function - my fallback plan was (as also suggested by Jürgen) to make a new internal function. Jan
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |