From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Jan Beulich" Subject: Re: (v2) Design proposal for RMRR fix Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 08:42:21 +0000 Message-ID: <54BCD17D0200007800056367@mail.emea.novell.com> References: <54B515E6020000780005444A@mail.emea.novell.com> <54B54D48020000780005473E@mail.emea.novell.com> <54B540AA.1010905@eu.citrix.com> <54B63E250200007800054A36@mail.emea.novell.com> <54B651EE0200007800054ADD@mail.emea.novell.com> <54B65AB4.5060504@eu.citrix.com> <54B68C180200007800054E84@mail.emea.novell.com> <54B67F32.8050902@eu.citrix.com> <54B68FA10200007800054F01@mail.emea.novell.com> <54B6B578.60106@eu.citrix.com> <54B78A5A02000078000552C2@mail.emea.novell.com> <54B79F26020000780005546B@mail.emea.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Kevin Tian Cc: "wei.liu2@citrix.com" , "ian.campbell@citrix.com" , "stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com" , George Dunlap , "tim@xen.org" , "ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com" , "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" , Yang Z Zhang , Tiejun Chen List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org >>> On 18.01.15 at 09:36, wrote: >> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:JBeulich@suse.com] >> Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 6:06 PM >> >> > The composed reserved region list is then passed to domain builder, >> > which tries to detect and avoid conflicts when populating guest RAM. >> > To avoid breaking lowmem/highmem layout, we can define a >> > lowmem_guard so if making hole for a region would make lowmem_top >> > below lowmem_guard we'll treat this region as a conflict. We may >> > either just hardcode the value like 2G (or other reasonable value in your >> > mind), or allow user to config e.g.: >> > rmrr = [ 'host, check=force/try', 'lowmem_boundary=2G' ] >> >> To me it looks like lowmem_boundary makes sense only when >> check=try. > > yes it only makes sense when check=try but the setting should be global > i.e. we don't want to have it configured per-device, right? do you have > a thought on a better option here? No, I think the naming is acceptable. I really just wanted to point out that the example line you gave wasn't fully consistent. Jan