From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ian Campbell Subject: Re: freemem-slack and large memory environments Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2015 10:02:25 +0000 Message-ID: <1425376945.24959.55.camel@citrix.com> References: <4321015.nah3j6dvJq@mlatimer1.dnsdhcp.provo.novell.com> <1425312260.23379.10.camel@citrix.com> <1462341.tRHO4kzITu@mlatimer1.dnsdhcp.provo.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1462341.tRHO4kzITu@mlatimer1.dnsdhcp.provo.novell.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Mike Latimer Cc: wei.liu2@citrix.com, Stefano Stabellini , ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com, xen-devel@lists.xen.org List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Mon, 2015-03-02 at 15:49 -0700, Mike Latimer wrote: > On Monday, March 02, 2015 04:15:41 PM Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > On Mon, 2 Mar 2015, Ian Campbell wrote: > > > ? "Continue as long as progress is being made" is exactly what > > > 2563bca1154 "libxl: Wait for ballooning if free memory is increasing" > > > was trying to implement, so it certainly was the idea behind the current > > > implementation (it may well not have managed to implement the idea it > > > was trying to). > > > > I don't think so: pre-2563bca1154 it wasn't and 2563bca1154 doesn't > > implement it properly. I think we should revert it. > > I agree. The intent was there, but we are not aware of any known problem cases > that the changes will effect. Reverting seems like the right thing to do. > > > I agree with the suggestion "continue as long as progress is being > > made". I disagree that "continue as long as progress is being made" is > > the current logic of freemem. > > > > I don't have an opinion on whether that logic should be implemented in > > freemem or libxl_wait_for_memory_target. The code below implements it in > > libxl_wait_for_memory_target. > > Seems like it should wait in libxl_wait_for_memory_target, as you have > implemented. Please can someone submit a series with the revert and the change to libxl_wait_for_memory_tareget in which ever order makes sense.