From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Glauber de Oliveira Costa Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH] make ballooning up to maxmem work Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 10:47:45 -0200 Message-ID: <20061122124745.GC2496@redhat.com> References: <20061122104021.GA2496@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Keir Fraser Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 11:18:39AM +0000, Keir Fraser wrote: > > > > On 22/11/06 10:40, "Glauber de Oliveira Costa" wrote: > > >> case XENMEM_current_reservation: > >> case XENMEM_maximum_reservation: > >> + case XENMEM_maximum_memory: > >> if ( copy_from_guest(&domid, arg, 1) ) > >> return -EFAULT; > > > > This still makes use of d->max_pages in return. Isn't it supposed to > > change in the future too? IIRC, according to Keir, max_pages will track > > the _current_ number of pages, differing from tot_pages only in a brief > > timeframe in which you balloon, but tot_pages was not yet updated. > > This adds a level of indirection at least, but really we may as well > implement the XENMEM_memory_map hypercall. Then there is no guest > modification required. We may need guest modifications anyway, since currently no actions are performed if the memory_map call does not return ENOSYS. -- Glauber de Oliveira Costa Red Hat Inc. "Free as in Freedom"