From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com>
Subject: Re: Possible regression: XEN 4.0.0 total_memory decrease
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 18:37:36 +0100
Message-ID: <C7EE5EF0.11823%keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com>
References: <4BC83396020000780003A934@vpn.id2.novell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com>
In-Reply-To: <4BC83396020000780003A934@vpn.id2.novell.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: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@novell.com>
Cc: "Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" <Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>, Alex Williams <awilliams@iweb.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 16/04/2010 08:53, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@novell.com> wrote:

>>>> Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com> 15.04.10 20:23 >>>
>> I've fixed this regression as xen-unstable:21190 and xen-4.0-testing:21114.
>> The fix will appear in Xen 4.0.1.
> 
> That seems wrong to me - I specifically changed the accounting so
> that pieces not used from the E820 map (which can no longer be cut
> off in e820.c, as that code doesn't know *where* to cut off) won't
> get reported as available memory. The real question is where (for
> the non-cut-off case) the two calculations differ.

boot_e820 has chunks cut out of it for stashing kexec stuff, as well as all
the multiboot modules. The value thereby obtained is just confusing to users
who think we've binned possibly 100s of megabytes (if they run a big
initrd).

 -- Keir