From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Subject: Re: RE: Ballooning up Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 09:35:41 -0700 Message-ID: <4C8FA45D.1040606@goop.org> References: <4C85F973.2030007@goop.org> <54eebb3a-f539-43be-8134-a969a4f671c4@default> <4C8EAB0E.7040407@goop.org> <4C8F51470200007800015EEA@vpn.id2.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4C8F51470200007800015EEA@vpn.id2.novell.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Jan Beulich Cc: Dan Magenheimer , Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, Konrad Wilk , Daniel Kiper , Stefano Stabellini List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 09/14/2010 01:41 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 14.09.10 at 00:51, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: >> I guess there are three options: >> >> 1. add a "xen_maxmem" (or something) kernel parameter to override >> space specified in the E820 table > Isn't that what the (native) "mem=" option is intended for? Good point, there's no need to add anything. >> 3. only allow extra memory up to a certain ratio of the base memory >> (8x? 16x? 32x?) > Enforcing a sane upper limit of the ratio (we use 32x currently) > seems like a reasonable thing to do in any case. OK, I'll do that. J