From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1N7HAq-0004kG-7e for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 08 Nov 2009 18:27:56 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1N7HAl-0004fp-GL for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 08 Nov 2009 18:27:55 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=48066 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1N7HAl-0004fi-9N for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 08 Nov 2009 18:27:51 -0500 Received: from mail2.shareable.org ([80.68.89.115]:33939) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1N7HAk-0001V9-V6 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 08 Nov 2009 18:27:51 -0500 Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2009 23:27:44 +0000 From: Jamie Lokier Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] virtio: Report new guest memory statistics pertinent to memory ballooning Message-ID: <20091108232744.GA5275@shareable.org> References: <1257461425.3121.22.camel@aglitke> <4AF6891D.3080308@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4AF6891D.3080308@redhat.com> List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Avi Kivity Cc: aliguori@us.ibm.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Adam Litke Avi Kivity wrote: > > (qemu) info balloon > > balloon: actual=1024 MB > > balloon: pswapin=0 pages > > balloon: pswapout=0 pages > > balloon: panon=3928 KB > > balloon: pgmajfault=0 > > balloon: pgminfault=247914 > > balloon: memfree=987032 KB > > balloon: memtot=1020812 KB > > It's important that these statistics be cross platform. Can you (or > someone knowledgeable in Windows) verify that all of these are > meaningful there? I'd expect it to be so with the possible exception of > panon. pswapin, pswapout, pgmajfault and pgminfault are not meaningful even on some Linux targets (those without MMU, and therefore no page faults). Yet even those could, perhaps, use virtio-balloon. It's probably best to have a way to omit values that are not meaningful to a guest, or otherwise indicate "not defined by the current guest". -- Jamie