From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] Expose available KVM free memory slot count to help avoid aborts Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 11:28:12 +0200 Message-ID: <4D413AAC.70903@redhat.com> References: <20110125145955.GE15666@redhat.com> <4D3F0974.3040904@redhat.com> <20110125175839.GC17734@redhat.com> <4D3FE697.4010502@redhat.com> <20110126092038.GD2704@redhat.com> <4D3FE809.6020102@redhat.com> <20110126093933.GF2704@redhat.com> <4D3FEF4D.9080008@redhat.com> <20110126120851.GA11913@redhat.com> <4D41392B.2070609@redhat.com> <20110127092619.GA30424@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Alex Williamson , Jan Kiszka , Marcelo Tosatti , "kvm@vger.kernel.org" , "ddutile@redhat.com" , "chrisw@redhat.com" To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:9576 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752654Ab1A0J2R (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Jan 2011 04:28:17 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20110127092619.GA30424@redhat.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 01/27/2011 11:26 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > >Right. That's why I say that sorting by size might not be optimal. > > >Maybe a cache ... > > > > Why would it not be optimal? > > > > If you have 16GB RAM in two slots and a few megabytes here and there > > scattered in some slots, you have three orders of magnitudes to > > spare. > > Yes but you might not be accessing all that RAM. > Maybe your workset is just tens of megabytes. Great, then you fault it in and never touch the slots array again. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function