Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 16:34:37 -0700
> Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On 10/09/2012 06:14 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> > On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 00:09:12 +0000 KY Srinivasan <kys@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> >>>> + if (!pg) {
>> >>>> + *alloc_error = true;
>> >>>> + return i * alloc_unit;
>> >>>> + }
>> >>>> +
>> >>>> + totalram_pages -= alloc_unit;
>> >>> Well, I'd consider totalram_pages to be an mm-private thing which drivers
>> >>> shouldn't muck with. Why is this done?
>> >> By modifying the totalram_pages, the information presented in /proc/meminfo
>> >> correctly reflects what is currently assigned to the guest (MemTotal).
>> > eh? /proc/meminfo:MemTotal tells you the total memory in the machine.
>> > The only thing which should change it after boot is memory hotplug.
>> [...]
>> > Why on earth do balloon drivers do this? If the amount of memory which
>> > is consumed by balloons is interesting then it should be exported via a
>> > standalone metric, not by mucking with totalram_pages.
>>
>> Balloon drivers are trying to fake a form of page-by-page memory
>> hotplug. When they allocate memory from the kernel, they're actually
>> giving the pages back to the hypervisor to redistribute to other
>> guests. They reduce totalram_pages to try and reflect that the memory
>> is no longer the kernel (in Xen, at least, the pfns will no longer have
>> any physical page underlying them).
>>
>> I agree this is pretty ugly; it would be nice to have some better
>> interface to indicate what's going on. At one point I tried to use the
>> memory hotplug interfaces for larger-scale dynamic transfers of memory
>> between a domain and the host, but when I last looked at it, it was too
>> coarse grained and heavyweight to replace the balloon mechanism.
>>
>
> urgh.
>
> I suppose the least we can do here would be to stop directly dinking
> with totalram_pages and create some sort of interface for this
> operation. That interface would run the memory hotplug notifier so
> that code which cares about changes in the amount of physical memory
> can take appropriate steps. The implications would be that the balloon
> drivers would need to call this interface at low frequency (ie: batch
> the pages) and in some reasonably lock-free context.
>
> I guess that's solving a non-problem at this stage.
Yep. drivers/virtio/virtio_balloon manipulates it too. This, it's best
practice!
Cheers,
Rusty.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
