Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH 2/3] drivers/xen/balloon.c: Various balloon features and fixes

[Daniel Kiper <dkiper@net-space.pl>]

On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 11:43:14AM +0000, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-12-31 at 11:20 +0000, Pasi K??rkk??inen wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 05:49:10PM +0100, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 12:52:03AM +0300, Vasiliy G Tolstov wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 11:39:18 -0500, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
> > > > <konrad.wilk@oracle.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 07:27:56PM +0300, Vasiliy G Tolstov wrote:
> > > > >> On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 10:08:47 -0500, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
> > > > >> <konrad.wilk@oracle.com> wrote:
> > > > >> > On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 02:47:24PM +0100, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> > > > >> >> Features and fixes:
> > > > >> >>   - HVM mode is supported now,
> > > > >> >>   - migration from mod_timer() to schedule_delayed_work(),
> > > > >> >>   - removal of driver_pages (I do not have seen any
> > > > >> >>     references to it),
> > > > >> >>   - protect before CPU exhaust by event/x process during
> > > > >> >>     errors by adding some delays in scheduling next event,
> > > > >> >>   - some other minor fixes.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I have apply this patch to bare 2.6.36.2 kernel from kernel.org. If
> > > > >> memory=maxmemory pv guest run's on migrating fine.
> > > > >> If on already running domU i have xm mem-max xxx 1024 (before that it
> > > > >> has 768) and do xm mem-set 1024 guest now have 1024 memory, but after
> > > > >> that it can't migrate to another host.
> > >
> > > Do you still need memory hotplug patch for jeremy stable-2.6.32.x ???
> >
> > I think it would be good to have it for xen/stable-2.6.32.x aswell!
>
> In general we are hoping to move development of new features to more
> recent upstream versions and become increasingly conservative with what
> gets taken into the 2.6.32.x branch.
>
> If we think a particular feature is worth having for 2.6.32.x then I
> think it would be worth getting them upstream and stabilised before
> considering it for backport to 2.6.32.x.
>
> > (that's the tree that's used the most atm).
>
> But what is the demand for this particular functionality among the users
> of that tree who cannot or will not switch to a more recent upstream?
> Bearing in mind that this is primarily a domU feature and that domU
> support is well established upstream.

I agree with Ian. However, I think that if it will be expected
by community I could prepare backport of final upstream version
and publish it as "unofficial" version.

Daniel