From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Subject: Re: RE: Ballooning up Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 10:29:15 -0700 Message-ID: <4C91026B.8020909@goop.org> References: <4C85F973.2030007@goop.org> <54eebb3a-f539-43be-8134-a969a4f671c4@default> <4C8EAB0E.7040407@goop.org> <1284455248.14311.16824.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> <4C8FA606.3030502@goop.org> <1284534649.15518.205.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1284534649.15518.205.camel@localhost.localdomain> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Ian Campbell Cc: Dan Magenheimer , "Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" , Konrad Wilk , Daniel Kiper , Stefano Stabellini List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 09/15/2010 12:10 AM, Ian Campbell wrote: >> Indeed. I think adding general 32x limit between base and max size will >> prevent a completely unusable system, and then just suggest using mem= >> to control that more precisely (esp for dom0). > Sounds reasonable. I found 32x doesn't work; there seems to be a lot more per-page overhead than I expected. I made the limit 10x, which I determined empirically and somewhat arbitrarily, but it does seem reasonable. J