Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> Izik Eidus wrote:
>>> Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I think it's just a matter of calling do_mmap() with the
>>>> appropriate parameters. It looks likes there's some drivers call
>>>> do_mmap() directly.
>>>>
>>> yea, i think you right, this is excellent idea!, when we will merge
>>> the swapping to kvm, we will add swapping support to older userspace.
>>
>> Here's a patch against your series. The memset in kvmctl ends up
>> making the guest use all physical memory to start off with but I did
>> confirm that once the system is under memory pressure, the guest's
>> memory becomes swappable. Of course, it's quite painful :-)
>>
>> A nice thing though is that a lot of the code becomes a bit cleaner
>> and we can eliminate the phys_mem array entirely.
>
>> /* Allocate if a slot is being created */
>> - if (npages && !new.phys_mem) {
>> - new.phys_mem = vmalloc(npages * sizeof(struct page *));
>> -
>> - if (!new.phys_mem)
>> - goto out_unlock;
>> -
>> + if (npages) {
>
> This is wrong apparently. We needed to have new.phys_mem to indicate
> whether the slot has been created yet or not. The new attached patch
> uses new.rmap instead of new.phys_mem to accomplish the same goal.
>
this patch look good, and indeed make all the things simple.
but why you didnt use new.phys_mem ?
> I no longer see the BUG() that I was seeing.
>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Anthony Liguori
>>
>>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
_______________________________________________
kvm-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
