From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Alex Williams <awilliams@iweb.com>
Subject: Possible regression: XEN 4.0.0 total_memory decrease
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 11:54:47 -0400
Message-ID: <4BC736C7.6080707@iweb.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
To: Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

Hello,

I noticed a significant *decrease* (150MB) in "total_memory" on a host=20
build using XEN 4.0.0 with kernel 2.6.18.

Here are the details:

Server =3D 4096MB RAM
XEN 3.4.2 + kernel 2.6.18: xm info | grep total_memory =3D 4084
XEN 4.0.0 + kernel 2.6.18: xm info | grep total_memory =3D 3946

The exact same kernel config file was used for both builds. I also made=20
sure there is absolutely no difference on the hosts (while the builds=20
are created on a different machine).

This seems like a regression, unless someone can provide suggestions on=20
how to correct this?

Thanks.


--=20
Alexander Williams
IT Architecture Specialist
Sp=E9cialiste de l'Architecture TI
http://www.iWeb.com/