Dale Bewley wrote:
----- "Chris Lalancette" <clalance(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
> Dale Bewley wrote:
>> Already been poking![1] But now it's bed time. Hopefully I can do
> some more testing tomorrow.
>> [1]
>
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Dale/Test_Day:2009-05-07_Virtualizatio...
>
>
> Thanks a lot for starting in on this! Quick question about your ballooning
> results; did you remember to balloon down the dom0 before trying to
> balloon up your guest? It doesn't do it automatically on when you run the
> "virsh setmem" command.
Actually I did not modify the dom0. Can you take a peek at the discussion
page[1]? Perhaps the test case could be clarified a little bit.
Is step 1 run in the dom0?
No, that's in the domU.
Is step 2 modifying xend to affect dom0 or a guest config? I assumed the
latter but guest configs aren't there anymore.
Yes, that's right, it's for changing the guest configuration.
Just in case, I did try shrinking Domain-0 and testing again.
[root@felix tmp]# virsh dominfo Domain-0 ... Max memory: no limit Used
memory: 5181440 kB
[root@felix tmp]# virst setmem Domain-0 $(( 1024 * 3000 ))
[root@felix tmp]# virsh dominfo Domain-0 ... Max memory: no limit Used
memory: 3072000 kB
But I could not setmem to a value higher than <maxmem> of the domU config.
[root@felix tmp]# virsh setmem f11-32 $(( 1024 * 2000 )) error: Invalid value
of 2048000 for memory size
I could balloon to values between <currentMemory> and <maxmem>, and 'xm
list
f11-32' would show the expected value, but the guest would not show more than
<currentMemory>. So apparently I misunderstood the meaning of that element.
I just tested another domU and I'll update my notes later, but:
* If it's assumed that <currentMemory> should not be used for this test
(contrary to what I put on the discusson page), and that you can't balloon a
guest beyond <maxmem> then everything works fine. I can shrink and grow below
<maxmem> with no issues.
* If it's expected you can balloon to values between <currentMemory> and
<maxmem>, then something may be wrong.
Yeah, I also tested it, and it's definitely a bug. You should be able to
balloon anywhere between the value of 0 (OK, that would be stupid, but should
exist in theory) and "<maxmem>", inclusive. I've filed
http://bugzilla.redhat.com/499587 to track it. Thanks for testing it out again.
--
Chris Lalancette