On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 03:01:37PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 14:28:51 +0300, "Michael S. Tsirkin"
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 12:16:51PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > I was thinking of exactly that page->mapping == balloon_mapping check. As
> > > I
> > > do not
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 14:28:51 +0300, "Michael S. Tsirkin"
wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 12:16:51PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > I was thinking of exactly that page->mapping == balloon_mapping check. As I
> > do not know how many active balloon drivers there might be I cannot guess
> > in
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 14:28:51 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com
wrote:
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 12:16:51PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
I was thinking of exactly that page-mapping == balloon_mapping check. As I
do not know how many active balloon drivers there might be I cannot guess
in
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 03:01:37PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 14:28:51 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com
wrote:
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 12:16:51PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
I was thinking of exactly that page-mapping == balloon_mapping check. As
I
do not
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 11:59:11AM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 17:40:19 +0300, "Michael S. Tsirkin"
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 09:34:58AM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:31:09PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > > now CPU1
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 17:40:19 +0300, "Michael S. Tsirkin"
wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 09:34:58AM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:31:09PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > now CPU1 executes the next instruction:
> > > > >
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > >
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 17:40:19 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com
wrote:
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 09:34:58AM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:31:09PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
now CPU1 executes the next instruction:
}
which would
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 11:59:11AM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 17:40:19 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com
wrote:
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 09:34:58AM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:31:09PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
now CPU1
On 08/14/2012 05:38 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
And even ignoring that, global pointer to a device
is an ugly hack and ugly hacks tend to explode.
And even ignoring estetics, and if we decide we are fine
with a single balloon, it needs to fail gracefully not
crash like it does now.
Fair
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 09:34:58AM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:31:09PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > now CPU1 executes the next instruction:
> > > >
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > which would normally return to function's caller,
> > > > but it has been
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:31:09PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > now CPU1 executes the next instruction:
> > >
> > > }
> > >
> > > which would normally return to function's caller,
> > > but it has been overwritten by CPU2 so we get corruption.
> > >
> > > No?
> >
> > At the point
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 12:16:51PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 01:01:08PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 10:48:39AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 12:25:28PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 01:01:08PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 10:48:39AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 12:25:28PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 10:05:28AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2012
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 10:48:39AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 12:25:28PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 10:05:28AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:11:13PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 12:25:28PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 10:05:28AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:11:13PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:51:39PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > What I think you
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 10:05:28AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:11:13PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:51:39PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > What I think you should do is use rcu for access.
> > > And here sync rcu before freeing.
> > >
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:11:13PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:51:39PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > What I think you should do is use rcu for access.
> > And here sync rcu before freeing.
> > Maybe an overkill but at least a documented synchronization
> >
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:11:13PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:51:39PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
What I think you should do is use rcu for access.
And here sync rcu before freeing.
Maybe an overkill but at least a documented synchronization
primitive, and
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 10:05:28AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:11:13PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:51:39PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
What I think you should do is use rcu for access.
And here sync rcu before freeing.
Maybe an
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 12:25:28PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 10:05:28AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:11:13PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:51:39PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
What I think you should do is
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 10:48:39AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 12:25:28PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 10:05:28AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:11:13PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:51:39PM
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 01:01:08PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 10:48:39AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 12:25:28PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 10:05:28AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 12:16:51PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 01:01:08PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 10:48:39AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 12:25:28PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:31:09PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
now CPU1 executes the next instruction:
}
which would normally return to function's caller,
but it has been overwritten by CPU2 so we get corruption.
No?
At the point CPU2 is unloading the module,
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 09:34:58AM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:31:09PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
now CPU1 executes the next instruction:
}
which would normally return to function's caller,
but it has been overwritten by CPU2 so we get
On 08/14/2012 05:38 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
And even ignoring that, global pointer to a device
is an ugly hack and ugly hacks tend to explode.
And even ignoring estetics, and if we decide we are fine
with a single balloon, it needs to fail gracefully not
crash like it does now.
Fair
On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 11:33:20 +0300, "Michael S. Tsirkin"
wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 09:29:49AM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 11:41:23 +0300, "Michael S. Tsirkin"
> > wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 02:55:15PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> > > > +/*
> > > > + *
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 06:34:13PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 11:49:06PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:29:50PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 11:24:01PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Aug 14,
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 04:56:59PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On 08/14/2012 04:54 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
> >To clarify, the global state that this patch adds, is ugly
> >even if we didn't support multiple balloons yet.
> >So I don't think I can accept such a patch.
> >Rusty has a final
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 11:49:06PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:29:50PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 11:24:01PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:08:31PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Aug 14,
On 08/14/2012 04:54 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
To clarify, the global state that this patch adds, is ugly
even if we didn't support multiple balloons yet.
So I don't think I can accept such a patch.
Rusty has a final word here, maybe he thinks differently.
Before deciding that "does not
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 11:49:06PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:29:50PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 11:24:01PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:08:31PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Aug 14,
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:29:50PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 11:24:01PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:08:31PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:59:16PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > > > What if
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:11:13PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:51:39PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > What I think you should do is use rcu for access.
> > And here sync rcu before freeing.
> > Maybe an overkill but at least a documented synchronization
> >
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 11:24:01PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:08:31PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:59:16PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > > What if there is more than one balloon device?
> > > > >
> > > > > Is it
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:08:31PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:59:16PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > What if there is more than one balloon device?
> > > >
> > > > Is it possible to load this driver twice, or are you foreseeing a
> > > > future case
> >
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:51:39PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> What I think you should do is use rcu for access.
> And here sync rcu before freeing.
> Maybe an overkill but at least a documented synchronization
> primitive, and it is very light weight.
>
I liked your suggestion on
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:59:16PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > What if there is more than one balloon device?
> > >
> > > Is it possible to load this driver twice, or are you foreseeing a future
> > > case
> > > where this driver will be able to manage several distinct memory
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:51:39PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 03:22:45PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 11:41:23AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > @@ -141,7 +151,10 @@ static void fill_balloon(struct virtio_balloon
> > > > *vb,
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 03:22:45PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 11:41:23AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > @@ -141,7 +151,10 @@ static void fill_balloon(struct virtio_balloon *vb,
> > > size_t num)
> > > set_page_pfns(vb->pfns + vb->num_pfns, page);
> > >
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 03:44:09PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 11:33:20AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 09:29:49AM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > > On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 11:41:23 +0300, "Michael S. Tsirkin"
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Aug
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 11:33:20AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 09:29:49AM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 11:41:23 +0300, "Michael S. Tsirkin"
> > wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 02:55:15PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> > > > +/*
> > > > +
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 11:41:23AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > @@ -141,7 +151,10 @@ static void fill_balloon(struct virtio_balloon *vb,
> > size_t num)
> > set_page_pfns(vb->pfns + vb->num_pfns, page);
> > vb->num_pages += VIRTIO_BALLOON_PAGES_PER_PAGE;
> >
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 09:29:49AM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 11:41:23 +0300, "Michael S. Tsirkin"
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 02:55:15PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> > > +/*
> > > + * Populate balloon_mapping->a_ops->freepage method to help compaction on
> > > +
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 09:29:49AM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 11:41:23 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com
wrote:
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 02:55:15PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
+/*
+ * Populate balloon_mapping-a_ops-freepage method to help compaction on
+ *
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 11:41:23AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
@@ -141,7 +151,10 @@ static void fill_balloon(struct virtio_balloon *vb,
size_t num)
set_page_pfns(vb-pfns + vb-num_pfns, page);
vb-num_pages += VIRTIO_BALLOON_PAGES_PER_PAGE;
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 11:33:20AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 09:29:49AM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 11:41:23 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com
wrote:
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 02:55:15PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
+/*
+ *
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 03:44:09PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 11:33:20AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 09:29:49AM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 11:41:23 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin
m...@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 03:22:45PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 11:41:23AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
@@ -141,7 +151,10 @@ static void fill_balloon(struct virtio_balloon *vb,
size_t num)
set_page_pfns(vb-pfns + vb-num_pfns, page);
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:51:39PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 03:22:45PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 11:41:23AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
@@ -141,7 +151,10 @@ static void fill_balloon(struct virtio_balloon
*vb, size_t num)
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:59:16PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
What if there is more than one balloon device?
Is it possible to load this driver twice, or are you foreseeing a future
case
where this driver will be able to manage several distinct memory balloons
for
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:51:39PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
What I think you should do is use rcu for access.
And here sync rcu before freeing.
Maybe an overkill but at least a documented synchronization
primitive, and it is very light weight.
I liked your suggestion on barriers, as
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:08:31PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:59:16PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
What if there is more than one balloon device?
Is it possible to load this driver twice, or are you foreseeing a
future case
where this driver
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 11:24:01PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:08:31PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:59:16PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
What if there is more than one balloon device?
Is it possible to load this
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:11:13PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:51:39PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
What I think you should do is use rcu for access.
And here sync rcu before freeing.
Maybe an overkill but at least a documented synchronization
primitive, and
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:29:50PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 11:24:01PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:08:31PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:59:16PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
What if there is more
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 11:49:06PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:29:50PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 11:24:01PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:08:31PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at
On 08/14/2012 04:54 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
To clarify, the global state that this patch adds, is ugly
even if we didn't support multiple balloons yet.
So I don't think I can accept such a patch.
Rusty has a final word here, maybe he thinks differently.
Before deciding that does not
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 11:49:06PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:29:50PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 11:24:01PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:08:31PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 04:56:59PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
On 08/14/2012 04:54 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
To clarify, the global state that this patch adds, is ugly
even if we didn't support multiple balloons yet.
So I don't think I can accept such a patch.
Rusty has a final word
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 06:34:13PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 11:49:06PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:29:50PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 11:24:01PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at
On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 11:33:20 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com
wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 09:29:49AM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 11:41:23 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com
wrote:
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 02:55:15PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 11:41:23 +0300, "Michael S. Tsirkin"
wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 02:55:15PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> > +/*
> > + * Populate balloon_mapping->a_ops->freepage method to help compaction on
> > + * re-inserting an isolated page into the balloon page list.
> > + */
> >
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 02:55:15PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> Memory fragmentation introduced by ballooning might reduce significantly
> the number of 2MB contiguous memory blocks that can be used within a guest,
> thus imposing performance penalties associated with the reduced number of
>
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 02:55:15PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
Memory fragmentation introduced by ballooning might reduce significantly
the number of 2MB contiguous memory blocks that can be used within a guest,
thus imposing performance penalties associated with the reduced number of
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 11:41:23 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com
wrote:
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 02:55:15PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
+/*
+ * Populate balloon_mapping-a_ops-freepage method to help compaction on
+ * re-inserting an isolated page into the balloon page list.
+ */
66 matches
Mail list logo
