Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 29/04/2015 15:05, Jan Kiszka wrote: >> > Yeah... I hear you. Ok, let me put it this way - Assume that we can >> > defer this allocation up until the point that the nested subsystem is >> > actually used i.e L1 tries running a guest and we try to allocate this >> > area. If get_free_page() failed in that case, would we still want to >> > kill L1 too ? I guess no. >> >> We could block the hypervisor thread on the allocation, just like it >> would block on faults for swapped out pages or new ones that have to be >> reclaimed from the page cache first. So, block on a failure hoping that eventually it will succeed ? > In that case we should avoid making the allocation GFP_ATOMIC to begin with. > > If a GFP_KERNEL allocation failed, returning -ENOMEM from KVM_RUN (which > practically means killing the guest) would actually be a very real > possibility. Sorry Paolo, I missed your point. Isn't the allocation already GFP_KERNEL ? > Paolo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
