Re: [PATCH 2 of 2 RFC] xl: allow for moving the domain's memory when changing vcpu affinity

[Dario Faggioli <raistlin@linux.it>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1283 bytes --]

On Fri, 2012-07-06 at 15:04 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
> > IOW, I think it would be worthwhile to have both the automatic memory
> > migration happening in background and something like this explicit,
> > do-it-all-now, as they serve different purposes.
> Well, I think you can have an explicit, do-it-now mechanism that doesn't 
> require suspending the VM; and in fact, I think such a mechanism would 
> be much preferable.
> 
I fully agree on this.

> I'm not opposed to the -M option meaning, "...and please move the memory 
> based on the new nodemask".  But I don't think implementing it as 
> suspend/resume is really that useful, except as a stopgap measure until 
> we can get "live" memory migration working.  
>
I see, then we agree on everything, basically. :-P

> If we can get that before 
> 4.3, there's no need for the stopgap measure.
> 
Sure, that was the reason why it was an RFC after all... And it at least
triggered this discussion. :-)

Thanks and Regards,
Dario

-- 
<<This happens because I choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dario Faggioli, Ph.D, http://retis.sssup.it/people/faggioli
Senior Software Engineer, Citrix Systems R&D Ltd., Cambridge (UK)


[-- Attachment #1.2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 126 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel