On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 10:51:42AM -0500, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 05:28:51PM +0100, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> > Protect against CPU exhaust by event/x process during
> > errors by adding some delays in scheduling next event.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Kiper <dkiper@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/xen/balloon.c | 99
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
> > 1 files changed, 80 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/xen/balloon.c b/drivers/xen/balloon.c
> > index 4223f64..ed103d4 100644
> > --- a/drivers/xen/balloon.c
> > +++ b/drivers/xen/balloon.c
> > @@ -66,6 +66,20 @@
> >
> > #define BALLOON_CLASS_NAME "xen_memory"
> >
> > +/*
> > + * balloon_process() state:
> > + *
> > + * BP_ERROR: error, go to sleep,
> > + * BP_DONE: done or nothing to do,
> > + * BP_HUNGRY: hungry.
> > + */
> > +
> > +enum bp_state {
> > + BP_ERROR,
>
> BP_EAGAIN?
>
> So if we fail to increase the first hour, we would keep on trying to
> increase forever (with a 32 second delay between each call). Do you
> think it makes sense (as a future patch, not tied in with this patchset)
> to printout a printk(KERN_INFO that we have been trying to increase
> for the last X hours, seconds and have not gone anywhere (and perhaps
> stop trying to allocate more memory?).
Duh, you did that in the next patch with the mh_policy.
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home