Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Message-Id: <5C46D9D00200007800210007@prv1-mh.provo.novell.com>
Date:   Tue, 22 Jan 2019 01:52:32 -0700
From:   "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com>
To:     "Juergen Gross" <jgross@suse.com>
Cc:     "Borislav Petkov" <bp@alien8.de>,
        "Stefano Stabellini" <sstabellini@kernel.org>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@kernel.org>, <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        <tglx@linutronix.de>, "xen-devel" <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>,
        "Boris Ostrovsky" <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>, <mingo@redhat.com>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <hpa@zytor.com>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/2] x86/xen: dont add memory above max
 allowed allocation
References: <20190122080628.7238-1-jgross@suse.com>
 <20190122080628.7238-3-jgross@suse.com>
In-Reply-To: <20190122080628.7238-3-jgross@suse.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

>>> On 22.01.19 at 09:06, <jgross@suse.com> wrote:
> Don't allow memory to be added above the allowed maximum allocation
> limit set by Xen.

This reads as if the hypervisor was imposing a limit here, but looking at
xen_get_max_pages(), xen_foreach_remap_area(), and
xen_count_remap_pages() I take it that it's a restriction enforced by
the Xen subsystem in Linux. Furthermore from the cover letter I imply
that the observed issue was on a Dom0, yet xen_get_max_pages()'s
use of XENMEM_maximum_reservation wouldn't impose any limit there
at all (without use of the hypervisor option "dom0_mem=max:..."),
would it?

Jan