From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Olaf Hering Subject: Re: [PATCH 4 of 4] xenpaging: initial libxl support Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 13:55:35 +0100 Message-ID: <20111107125535.GA16522@aepfle.de> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 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: Stefano Stabellini Cc: George Dunlap , "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" , Ian Campbell List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Mon, Nov 07, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > I think that using tot_memkb to store the actual memory target and then > checking whether is 0 to detect if paging is active/inactive is > confusing. tot_memkb is only set when it was specified in the config file, and perhaps later when a suitable xl mem-FOO command and a related watch on the targer-tot_pages node is added. > If tot_memkb is the pod target of the domain, we should be coherent and > set it equal to target_memkb when paging is inactive. So far PoD and paging are unrelated and mean different things. I think the difference between max_memkb and tot_memkb could be the trigger to start paging. > > === Domain memory breakdown: PV guests ================================== > > > > diff -r a51d4fab351d -r ab5406a5b1d0 tools/libxl/libxl_types.idl > > --- a/tools/libxl/libxl_types.idl > > +++ b/tools/libxl/libxl_types.idl > > @@ -157,6 +157,7 @@ libxl_domain_build_info = Struct("domain > > ("tsc_mode", integer), > > ("max_memkb", uint32), > > ("target_memkb", uint32), > > + ("tot_memkb", uint32), > > ("video_memkb", uint32), > > ("shadow_memkb", uint32), > > ("disable_migrate", bool), > > I would like a comment somewhere of what tot_memkb is supposed to > represent. Yes, sorry, docu is lacking in that change. Olaf