On 18/02/14 17:40, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Mon, 2014-01-20 at 21:24 +0000, Zoltan Kiss wrote: >> >> @@ -344,8 +346,26 @@ struct xenvif *xenvif_alloc(struct device *parent, >> domid_t domid, >> vif->pending_prod = MAX_PENDING_REQS; >> for (i = 0; i < MAX_PENDING_REQS; i++) >> vif->pending_ring[i] = i; >> - for (i = 0; i < MAX_PENDING_REQS; i++) >> - vif->mmap_pages[i] = NULL; >> + spin_lock_init(&vif->dealloc_lock); >> + spin_lock_init(&vif->response_lock); >> + /* If ballooning is disabled, this will consume real memory, so you >> + * better enable it. > > Almost no one who would be affected by this is going to read this > comment. And it doesn't just require enabling ballooning, but actually > booting with some maxmem "slack" to leave space. > > Classic-xen kernels used to add 8M of slop to the physical address space > to leave a suitable pool for exactly this sort of thing. I never liked > that but perhaps it should be reconsidered (or at least raised as a > possibility with the core-Xen Linux guys).
I plan to fix the balloon memory hotplug stuff to do the right thing (it's almost there -- it just tries to overlap the new memory with existing stuff). David -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
