Re: [Xen-devel] [v4][PATCH 15/19] tools: introduce a new parameter to set a predefined rdm boundary

["Chen, Tiejun" <tiejun.chen@xxxxxxxxx>]

> > diff --git a/docs/man/xl.cfg.pod.5 b/docs/man/xl.cfg.pod.5
> > index 638b350..079465f 100644
> > --- a/docs/man/xl.cfg.pod.5
> > +++ b/docs/man/xl.cfg.pod.5
> > @@ -767,6 +767,27 @@ to a given device, and "strict" is default here.
> >
> >   Note this would override global B<rdm> option.
> >
> > +=item B<rdm_mem_boundary=MBYTES>
> > +
> > +Number of megabytes to set a boundary for checking rdm conflict.
> > +
> > +When RDM conflicts with RAM, RDM probably scatter the whole RAM space.
> > +Especially multiple RDM entries would worsen this to lead a complicated
> > +memory layout. So here we're trying to figure out a simple solution to
> > +avoid breaking existing layout. So when a conflict occurs,
> > +
> > +    #1. Above a predefined boundary
> > +        - move lowmem_end below reserved region to solve conflict;
> > +
> > +    #2. Below a predefined boundary
> > +        - Check strict/relaxed policy.
> > +        "strict" policy leads to fail libxl. Note when both policies
> > +        are specified on a given region, 'strict' is always preferred.
> > +        "relaxed" policy issue a warning message and also mask this entry 
> > INVALID
> > +        to indicate we shouldn't expose this entry to hvmloader.
> > +
> Can you check the generated manpage to see if the format is correct?
Yes, the format is correct but according to your comment below, I need 
to move this elsewhere.
> > +Here the default is 2G.
> > +
> >   =back
[snip]

> >       if (ret) {
> >           LOG(ERROR, "checking reserved device memory failed");
> > diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl_types.idl b/tools/libxl/libxl_types.idl
> > index 5ba075d..d130d48 100644
> > --- a/tools/libxl/libxl_types.idl
> > +++ b/tools/libxl/libxl_types.idl
> > @@ -395,6 +395,7 @@ libxl_domain_build_info = Struct("domain_build_info",[
> >       ("target_memkb",    MemKB),
> >       ("video_memkb",     MemKB),
> >       ("shadow_memkb",    MemKB),
> > +    ("rdm_mem_boundary_memkb",    MemKB),
> Should this be restricted to .hvm? This is HVM only feature after all.
Yes, I think this make sense but I think should move that parameter, 
"rdm" into .hvm as well.
Thanks
Tiejun

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel