On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 01:12:11PM +1000, David Gibson wrote: > On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 01:14:06PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 03:36:35PM +1000, David Gibson wrote: > [snip] > > Good catch! > > > > Unfortunately I find the approach a bit convoluted. > > It also looks like when host asks for 5 balloon pages > > you interpret this as 0 where 16 is probably saner > > on a 64K system. > > Hm, true. Although qemu at least actuall operates in units of > megabytes on the balloon, so I doubt it matters much in practice. > > > I think it's easier if we just keep doing math in > > balloon pages. I also get confused by shift operations, > > IMO / and * are clearer where they are applicable. > > Something like the below would make more sense I think. > > Sure. I thught working in local pages was clearer, but I don't really > care. > > > > I also wrote up a detailed commit log, so we have > > the bugs and the expected consequences listed explicitly. > > > > I'm out of time for this week - so completely untested, sorry. > > Maybe you could try this out? That would be great. > > Thanks! > > Your patch has numerous syntax errors, but once those are fixed seems > to work fine with a 64k ppc64 kernel. Fixed version below. I did add > one comment, to note that with this change the num_pages field in the > vb is no longer the same as the number of elements in the pages list. > Nothing in the code relies on that, but it would probably be the first > assumption of someone looking at the structure definition. Good point. Although this really applies to all other memory counters as well, so I put this at top of the file. > Please apply. Patch applied, thanks very much for the testing! _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
