Xen devel - Nov 2011 - libxl: error: libxl.c:2150:libxl_set_memory_target new target 0 for dom0 is below the minimum threshold

Hi,

This is to report that using xl create hvm domains will fail with the
below error:

libxl: error: libxl.c:2150:libxl_set_memory_target new target 0 for
dom0 is below the minimum threshold

However using xm create hvm domain is working fine.

Information about xen version:

hg_root = http://xenbits.xensource.com/staging/xen-4.1-testing.hg
hg_changeset = 23190

dom0 kernel information:

git url = git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jeremy/xen.git
git branch = xen/next-2.6.32
git commit = faa0ece5eb2f2bc4d9b149bc46b677b1df05d332

Last known working changeset for xen-4.1-testing before upgrade is
23110 and I don''t have chance to test other changeset.  Sorry.

Thanks.

Kindest regards,
Giam Teck Choon

On Tue, 2011-11-22 at 00:34 +0000, Teck Choon Giam
wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> This is to report that using xl create hvm domains will fail with the
> below error:
> 
> libxl: error: libxl.c:2150:libxl_set_memory_target new target 0 for
> dom0 is below the minimum threshold
> 
> However using xm create hvm domain is working fine.
Please provide you guest configuration file.

How much RAM does the host system have? What are your hypervisor and
dom0 command lines.

What is the last changeset which worked for you?

Ian.
> 
> Information about xen version:
> 
> hg_root = http://xenbits.xensource.com/staging/xen-4.1-testing.hg
> hg_changeset = 23190
> 
> dom0 kernel information:
> 
> git url = git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jeremy/xen.git
> git branch = xen/next-2.6.32
> git commit = faa0ece5eb2f2bc4d9b149bc46b677b1df05d332
> 
> Last known working changeset for xen-4.1-testing before upgrade is
> 23110 and I don''t have chance to test other changeset.  Sorry.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Kindest regards,
> Giam Teck Choon
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Hi Ian,

Thanks for your prompt reply.

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>
wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-11-22 at 00:34 +0000, Teck Choon Giam wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> This is to report that using xl create hvm domains will fail with the
>> below error:
>>
>> libxl: error: libxl.c:2150:libxl_set_memory_target new target 0 for
>> dom0 is below the minimum threshold
>>
>> However using xm create hvm domain is working fine.
>
> Please provide you guest configuration file.
Example as below as I just replace those with X:

kernel = "/usr/lib/xen/boot/hvmloader"
builder = ''hvm''
shadow_memory = 32
memory = 15360
maxmem = 15360
name = "XXX"
vif = [
''type=ioemu,mac=XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX,bridge=xenbr0,ip=XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX'',
''type=ioemu,mac=XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX,bridge=xenbr1,ip=XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX''
]
disk = [ ''phy:/dev/XenGroup/XXX,ioemu:hda,w'' ]
vmid=1
vcpus=4
ne2000=0
boot=''cd''
sdl=0
vncviewer=0
vncpasswd=''XXXXXXX''
vnclisten="XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX"
vnc=1
vncdisplay=1
vncunused=0
usbdevice=''tablet''
acpi=1
viridian=1
localtime=1

>
> How much RAM does the host system have? What are your hypervisor and
> dom0 command lines.
16GB RAM.

title Scientific Linux (2.6.32.47-0.xen.pvops.choon.sl6)
	root (hd0,0)
	kernel /xen.gz dom0_mem=512M loglvl=all guest_loglvl=all cpuidle=0 cpufreq=none
	module /vmlinuz-2.6.32.47-0.xen.pvops.choon.sl6 ro
root=UUID=154127e6-9469-4124-9a42-1f6c6160adf4
rd_MD_UUID=d5126687:736a76db:5d5f597f:8b16fad4 rd_NO_LUKS rd_NO_LVM
rd_NO_DM LANG=en_US.UTF-8 SYSFONT=latarcyrheb-sun16 KEYBOARDTYPE=pc
KEYTABLE=us crashkernel=auto rhgb quiet panic=5 panic_timeout=10
	module /initramfs-2.6.32.47-0.xen.pvops.choon.sl6.img
>
> What is the last changeset which worked for you?
I did provide last working changeset is 23110 in my initial email.
>
> Ian.
Thanks.

Kindest regards,
Giam Teck Choon
>
>>
>> Information about xen version:
>>
>> hg_root = http://xenbits.xensource.com/staging/xen-4.1-testing.hg
>> hg_changeset = 23190
>>
>> dom0 kernel information:
>>
>> git url = git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jeremy/xen.git
>> git branch = xen/next-2.6.32
>> git commit = faa0ece5eb2f2bc4d9b149bc46b677b1df05d332
>>
>> Last known working changeset for xen-4.1-testing before upgrade is
>> 23110 and I don''t have chance to test other changeset.  Sorry.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Kindest regards,
>> Giam Teck Choon
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Xen-devel mailing list
>> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
>> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>
>
>

On Tue, 2011-11-22 at 07:56 +0000, Teck Choon Giam wrote:
[...]
> memory = 15360
> maxmem = 15360
[...]
> How much RAM does the host system have? What are your hypervisor and
> > dom0 command lines.
> 
> 16GB RAM.
So you are assigning 15GB out of a total of 16GB to the guest which
necessitates ballooning dom0 from 16GB down to 1GB.
> title Scientific Linux (2.6.32.47-0.xen.pvops.choon.sl6)
> 	root (hd0,0)
> 	kernel /xen.gz dom0_mem=512M loglvl=all guest_loglvl=all cpuidle=0
cpufreq=none
But you have already forced the dom0_mem to 512M. I suspect this is
colluding with the above ballooning to make it look as if dom0 should be
ballooned to <128M, which causes xl to print a warning message. Perhaps
someone who understands this stuff can comment on whether or not this
should be the case.

Can you try setting "autoballoon=0" in /etc/xl.cfg.

I can''t see anything in the range 23110:23190 which might have caused a
change in behaviour here though.
> 	module /vmlinuz-2.6.32.47-0.xen.pvops.choon.sl6 ro
> root=UUID=154127e6-9469-4124-9a42-1f6c6160adf4
> rd_MD_UUID=d5126687:736a76db:5d5f597f:8b16fad4 rd_NO_LUKS rd_NO_LVM
> rd_NO_DM LANG=en_US.UTF-8 SYSFONT=latarcyrheb-sun16 KEYBOARDTYPE=pc
> KEYTABLE=us crashkernel=auto rhgb quiet panic=5 panic_timeout=10
> 	module /initramfs-2.6.32.47-0.xen.pvops.choon.sl6.img
> 
> >
> > What is the last changeset which worked for you?
> 
> I did provide last working changeset is 23110 in my initial email.
So you did, sorry I missed it.

Ian.

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 4:18 PM, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>
wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-11-22 at 07:56 +0000, Teck Choon Giam wrote:
> [...]
>> memory = 15360
>> maxmem = 15360
> [...]
>> How much RAM does the host system have? What are your hypervisor and
>> > dom0 command lines.
>>
>> 16GB RAM.
>
> So you are assigning 15GB out of a total of 16GB to the guest which
> necessitates ballooning dom0 from 16GB down to 1GB.
I actually set dom0-min-mem 512 in xend-config.sxp as well.
>
>> title Scientific Linux (2.6.32.47-0.xen.pvops.choon.sl6)
>>       root (hd0,0)
>>       kernel /xen.gz dom0_mem=512M loglvl=all guest_loglvl=all
cpuidle=0 cpufreq=none
>
> But you have already forced the dom0_mem to 512M. I suspect this is
> colluding with the above ballooning to make it look as if dom0 should be
> ballooned to <128M, which causes xl to print a warning message. Perhaps
> someone who understands this stuff can comment on whether or not this
> should be the case.
>
> Can you try setting "autoballoon=0" in /etc/xl.cfg.
You mean /etc/xen/xl.conf?  I have done so and guess what?  IT WORKS!!! :)
>
> I can''t see anything in the range 23110:23190 which might have
caused a
> change in behaviour here though.
>
>>       module /vmlinuz-2.6.32.47-0.xen.pvops.choon.sl6 ro
>> root=UUID=154127e6-9469-4124-9a42-1f6c6160adf4
>> rd_MD_UUID=d5126687:736a76db:5d5f597f:8b16fad4 rd_NO_LUKS rd_NO_LVM
>> rd_NO_DM LANG=en_US.UTF-8 SYSFONT=latarcyrheb-sun16 KEYBOARDTYPE=pc
>> KEYTABLE=us crashkernel=auto rhgb quiet panic=5 panic_timeout=10
>>       module /initramfs-2.6.32.47-0.xen.pvops.choon.sl6.img
>>
>> >
>> > What is the last changeset which worked for you?
>>
>> I did provide last working changeset is 23110 in my initial email.
>
> So you did, sorry I missed it.
>
> Ian.
You do not need to say sorry as without your assistance I can''t even
possible play with Xen for so long and having fun ;)

Thanks.

Kindest regards,
Giam Teck Choon

On Tue, 2011-11-22 at 08:30 +0000, Teck Choon Giam
wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 4:18 PM, Ian Campbell
<Ian.Campbell@citrix.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2011-11-22 at 07:56 +0000, Teck Choon Giam wrote:
> > [...]
> >> memory = 15360
> >> maxmem = 15360
> > [...]
> >> How much RAM does the host system have? What are your hypervisor
and
> >> > dom0 command lines.
> >>
> >> 16GB RAM.
> >
> > So you are assigning 15GB out of a total of 16GB to the guest which
> > necessitates ballooning dom0 from 16GB down to 1GB.
> 
> I actually set dom0-min-mem 512 in xend-config.sxp as well.
xl/libxl don''t use this configuration file.
> 
> >
> >> title Scientific Linux (2.6.32.47-0.xen.pvops.choon.sl6)
> >>       root (hd0,0)
> >>       kernel /xen.gz dom0_mem=512M loglvl=all guest_loglvl=all
cpuidle=0 cpufreq=none
> >
> > But you have already forced the dom0_mem to 512M. I suspect this is
> > colluding with the above ballooning to make it look as if dom0 should
be
> > ballooned to <128M, which causes xl to print a warning message.
Perhaps
> > someone who understands this stuff can comment on whether or not this
> > should be the case.
> >
> > Can you try setting "autoballoon=0" in /etc/xl.cfg.
> 
> You mean /etc/xen/xl.conf?  I have done so and guess what?  IT WORKS!!! :)
Great.

Ian.
> 
> >
> > I can''t see anything in the range 23110:23190 which might
have caused a
> > change in behaviour here though.
> >
> >>       module /vmlinuz-2.6.32.47-0.xen.pvops.choon.sl6 ro
> >> root=UUID=154127e6-9469-4124-9a42-1f6c6160adf4
> >> rd_MD_UUID=d5126687:736a76db:5d5f597f:8b16fad4 rd_NO_LUKS
rd_NO_LVM
> >> rd_NO_DM LANG=en_US.UTF-8 SYSFONT=latarcyrheb-sun16
KEYBOARDTYPE=pc
> >> KEYTABLE=us crashkernel=auto rhgb quiet panic=5 panic_timeout=10
> >>       module /initramfs-2.6.32.47-0.xen.pvops.choon.sl6.img
> >>
> >> >
> >> > What is the last changeset which worked for you?
> >>
> >> I did provide last working changeset is 23110 in my initial email.
> >
> > So you did, sorry I missed it.
> >
> > Ian.
> 
> You do not need to say sorry as without your assistance I can''t
even
> possible play with Xen for so long and having fun ;)
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Kindest regards,
> Giam Teck Choon

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>
wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-11-22 at 08:30 +0000, Teck Choon Giam wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 4:18 PM, Ian Campbell
<Ian.Campbell@citrix.com> wrote:
>> > On Tue, 2011-11-22 at 07:56 +0000, Teck Choon Giam wrote:
>> > [...]
>> >> memory = 15360
>> >> maxmem = 15360
>> > [...]
>> >> How much RAM does the host system have? What are your
hypervisor and
>> >> > dom0 command lines.
>> >>
>> >> 16GB RAM.
>> >
>> > So you are assigning 15GB out of a total of 16GB to the guest
which
>> > necessitates ballooning dom0 from 16GB down to 1GB.
>>
>> I actually set dom0-min-mem 512 in xend-config.sxp as well.
>
> xl/libxl don''t use this configuration file.
Oh... now then I know.  I always test with both xl and xm for my
testing machine(s) to see any differences as there are... ...
>
>>
>> >
>> >> title Scientific Linux (2.6.32.47-0.xen.pvops.choon.sl6)
>> >>       root (hd0,0)
>> >>       kernel /xen.gz dom0_mem=512M loglvl=all guest_loglvl=all
cpuidle=0 cpufreq=none
>> >
>> > But you have already forced the dom0_mem to 512M. I suspect this
is
>> > colluding with the above ballooning to make it look as if dom0
should be
>> > ballooned to <128M, which causes xl to print a warning message.
Perhaps
>> > someone who understands this stuff can comment on whether or not
this
>> > should be the case.
>> >
>> > Can you try setting "autoballoon=0" in /etc/xl.cfg.
>>
>> You mean /etc/xen/xl.conf?  I have done so and guess what?  IT WORKS!!!
:)
>
> Great.
That means default value changed if it is unset for autoballoon?
Original one is commented with #autoballoon = 1 in /etc/xen/xl.conf so
it is unset I guess so the default value for autoballoon for c/s 23110
is autoballoon=0 where c/s 23190 is autoballoon=1?  Just some
guessing... ...
>
> Ian.
Thanks.

Kindest regards,
Giam Teck Choon

On Tue, 2011-11-22 at 08:38 +0000, Teck Choon Giam
wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Ian Campbell
<Ian.Campbell@citrix.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2011-11-22 at 08:30 +0000, Teck Choon Giam wrote:
> >> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 4:18 PM, Ian Campbell
<Ian.Campbell@citrix.com> wrote:
> >> > On Tue, 2011-11-22 at 07:56 +0000, Teck Choon Giam wrote:
> >> > [...]
> >> >> memory = 15360
> >> >> maxmem = 15360
> >> > [...]
> >> >> How much RAM does the host system have? What are your
hypervisor and
> >> >> > dom0 command lines.
> >> >>
> >> >> 16GB RAM.
> >> >
> >> > So you are assigning 15GB out of a total of 16GB to the guest
which
> >> > necessitates ballooning dom0 from 16GB down to 1GB.
> >>
> >> I actually set dom0-min-mem 512 in xend-config.sxp as well.
> >
> > xl/libxl don''t use this configuration file.
> 
> Oh... now then I know.  I always test with both xl and xm for my
> testing machine(s) to see any differences as there are... ...
I believe xend and xl do behave slightly differently wrt dom0 auto
ballooning.
> 
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >> title Scientific Linux (2.6.32.47-0.xen.pvops.choon.sl6)
> >> >>       root (hd0,0)
> >> >>       kernel /xen.gz dom0_mem=512M loglvl=all
guest_loglvl=all cpuidle=0 cpufreq=none
> >> >
> >> > But you have already forced the dom0_mem to 512M. I suspect
this is
> >> > colluding with the above ballooning to make it look as if
dom0 should be
> >> > ballooned to <128M, which causes xl to print a warning
message. Perhaps
> >> > someone who understands this stuff can comment on whether or
not this
> >> > should be the case.
> >> >
> >> > Can you try setting "autoballoon=0" in /etc/xl.cfg.
> >>
> >> You mean /etc/xen/xl.conf?  I have done so and guess what?  IT
WORKS!!! :)
> >
> > Great.
> 
> That means default value changed if it is unset for autoballoon?
> Original one is commented with #autoballoon = 1 in /etc/xen/xl.conf so
> it is unset I guess so the default value for autoballoon for c/s 23110
> is autoballoon=0 where c/s 23190 is autoballoon=1?  Just some
> guessing... ...
Can you give the full changeset numbers of what you see as 23110 and
23190 please, the short numbers are not globally stable and in my
version that file is identical in both.

Ian.
 
> 
> >
> > Ian.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Kindest regards,
> Giam Teck Choon

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>
wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-11-22 at 08:38 +0000, Teck Choon Giam wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Ian Campbell
<Ian.Campbell@citrix.com> wrote:
>> > On Tue, 2011-11-22 at 08:30 +0000, Teck Choon Giam wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 4:18 PM, Ian Campbell
<Ian.Campbell@citrix.com> wrote:
>> >> > On Tue, 2011-11-22 at 07:56 +0000, Teck Choon Giam wrote:
>> >> > [...]
>> >> >> memory = 15360
>> >> >> maxmem = 15360
>> >> > [...]
>> >> >> How much RAM does the host system have? What are your
hypervisor and
>> >> >> > dom0 command lines.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 16GB RAM.
>> >> >
>> >> > So you are assigning 15GB out of a total of 16GB to the
guest which
>> >> > necessitates ballooning dom0 from 16GB down to 1GB.
>> >>
>> >> I actually set dom0-min-mem 512 in xend-config.sxp as well.
>> >
>> > xl/libxl don''t use this configuration file.
>>
>> Oh... now then I know.  I always test with both xl and xm for my
>> testing machine(s) to see any differences as there are... ...
>
> I believe xend and xl do behave slightly differently wrt dom0 auto
> ballooning.
>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >> title Scientific Linux
(2.6.32.47-0.xen.pvops.choon.sl6)
>> >> >>       root (hd0,0)
>> >> >>       kernel /xen.gz dom0_mem=512M loglvl=all
guest_loglvl=all cpuidle=0 cpufreq=none
>> >> >
>> >> > But you have already forced the dom0_mem to 512M. I
suspect this is
>> >> > colluding with the above ballooning to make it look as if
dom0 should be
>> >> > ballooned to <128M, which causes xl to print a warning
message. Perhaps
>> >> > someone who understands this stuff can comment on whether
or not this
>> >> > should be the case.
>> >> >
>> >> > Can you try setting "autoballoon=0" in
/etc/xl.cfg.
>> >>
>> >> You mean /etc/xen/xl.conf?  I have done so and guess what?  IT
WORKS!!! :)
>> >
>> > Great.
>>
>> That means default value changed if it is unset for autoballoon?
>> Original one is commented with #autoballoon = 1 in /etc/xen/xl.conf so
>> it is unset I guess so the default value for autoballoon for c/s 23110
>> is autoballoon=0 where c/s 23190 is autoballoon=1?  Just some
>> guessing... ...
>
> Can you give the full changeset numbers of what you see as 23110 and
> 23190 please, the short numbers are not globally stable and in my
> version that file is identical in both.
Both changeset of that file is the same I believe:

cat xen-4.1-testing.hg/tools/examples/xl.conf
## Global XL config file ##

# automatically balloon down dom0 when xen doesn''t have enough free
# memory to create a domain
#autoballoon=1

# full path of the lockfile used by xl during domain creation
#lockfile="/var/lock/xl"

# default vif script
#vifscript="vif-bridge"

My previous comment about it is since autoballoon is not set for both
changeset in xl.conf but xl create hvm domain behaves differently
hence guessing of the difference might be related to the default value
of autoballoon (if not set in xl.conf file since it is commented).
> Ian.
Thanks.

Kindest regards,
Giam Teck Choon

On Tue, 22 Nov 2011, Teck Choon Giam wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Ian Campbell
<Ian.Campbell@citrix.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2011-11-22 at 08:38 +0000, Teck Choon Giam wrote:
> >> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Ian Campbell
<Ian.Campbell@citrix.com> wrote:
> >> > On Tue, 2011-11-22 at 08:30 +0000, Teck Choon Giam wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 4:18 PM, Ian Campbell
<Ian.Campbell@citrix.com> wrote:
> >> >> > On Tue, 2011-11-22 at 07:56 +0000, Teck Choon Giam
wrote:
> >> >> > [...]
> >> >> >> memory = 15360
> >> >> >> maxmem = 15360
> >> >> > [...]
> >> >> >> How much RAM does the host system have? What are
your hypervisor and
> >> >> >> > dom0 command lines.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> 16GB RAM.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > So you are assigning 15GB out of a total of 16GB to
the guest which
> >> >> > necessitates ballooning dom0 from 16GB down to 1GB.
> >> >>
> >> >> I actually set dom0-min-mem 512 in xend-config.sxp as
well.
> >> >
> >> > xl/libxl don''t use this configuration file.
> >>
> >> Oh... now then I know.  I always test with both xl and xm for my
> >> testing machine(s) to see any differences as there are... ...
> >
> > I believe xend and xl do behave slightly differently wrt dom0 auto
> > ballooning.
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> title Scientific Linux
(2.6.32.47-0.xen.pvops.choon.sl6)
> >> >> >>       root (hd0,0)
> >> >> >>       kernel /xen.gz dom0_mem=512M loglvl=all
guest_loglvl=all cpuidle=0 cpufreq=none
> >> >> >
> >> >> > But you have already forced the dom0_mem to 512M. I
suspect this is
> >> >> > colluding with the above ballooning to make it look
as if dom0 should be
> >> >> > ballooned to <128M, which causes xl to print a
warning message. Perhaps
> >> >> > someone who understands this stuff can comment on
whether or not this
> >> >> > should be the case.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Can you try setting "autoballoon=0" in
/etc/xl.cfg.
> >> >>
> >> >> You mean /etc/xen/xl.conf?  I have done so and guess
what?  IT WORKS!!! :)
> >> >
> >> > Great.
> >>
> >> That means default value changed if it is unset for autoballoon?
> >> Original one is commented with #autoballoon = 1 in
/etc/xen/xl.conf so
> >> it is unset I guess so the default value for autoballoon for c/s
23110
> >> is autoballoon=0 where c/s 23190 is autoballoon=1?  Just some
> >> guessing... ...
Autoballoon and dom0_mem are incompatible.
I don''t think there are any relevant differences between 23110 and
23190
on xen-unstable, maybe you used to start dom0 without dom0_mem before?
--8323329-196215385-1321960715=:31179
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

--8323329-196215385-1321960715=:31179--

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 7:18 PM, Stefano Stabellini
<stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Nov 2011, Teck Choon Giam wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Ian Campbell
<Ian.Campbell@citrix.com> wrote:
>> > On Tue, 2011-11-22 at 08:38 +0000, Teck Choon Giam wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Ian Campbell
<Ian.Campbell@citrix.com> wrote:
>> >> > On Tue, 2011-11-22 at 08:30 +0000, Teck Choon Giam wrote:
>> >> >> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 4:18 PM, Ian Campbell
<Ian.Campbell@citrix.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > On Tue, 2011-11-22 at 07:56 +0000, Teck Choon
Giam wrote:
>> >> >> > [...]
>> >> >> >> memory = 15360
>> >> >> >> maxmem = 15360
>> >> >> > [...]
>> >> >> >> How much RAM does the host system have? What
are your hypervisor and
>> >> >> >> > dom0 command lines.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> 16GB RAM.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > So you are assigning 15GB out of a total of 16GB
to the guest which
>> >> >> > necessitates ballooning dom0 from 16GB down to
1GB.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I actually set dom0-min-mem 512 in xend-config.sxp as
well.
>> >> >
>> >> > xl/libxl don''t use this configuration file.
>> >>
>> >> Oh... now then I know.  I always test with both xl and xm for
my
>> >> testing machine(s) to see any differences as there are... ...
>> >
>> > I believe xend and xl do behave slightly differently wrt dom0 auto
>> > ballooning.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> title Scientific Linux
(2.6.32.47-0.xen.pvops.choon.sl6)
>> >> >> >>       root (hd0,0)
>> >> >> >>       kernel /xen.gz dom0_mem=512M
loglvl=all guest_loglvl=all cpuidle=0 cpufreq=none
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > But you have already forced the dom0_mem to
512M. I suspect this is
>> >> >> > colluding with the above ballooning to make it
look as if dom0 should be
>> >> >> > ballooned to <128M, which causes xl to print
a warning message. Perhaps
>> >> >> > someone who understands this stuff can comment
on whether or not this
>> >> >> > should be the case.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Can you try setting "autoballoon=0" in
/etc/xl.cfg.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You mean /etc/xen/xl.conf?  I have done so and guess
what?  IT WORKS!!! :)
>> >> >
>> >> > Great.
>> >>
>> >> That means default value changed if it is unset for
autoballoon?
>> >> Original one is commented with #autoballoon = 1 in
/etc/xen/xl.conf so
>> >> it is unset I guess so the default value for autoballoon for
c/s 23110
>> >> is autoballoon=0 where c/s 23190 is autoballoon=1?  Just some
>> >> guessing... ...
>
> Autoballoon and dom0_mem are incompatible.
> I don''t think there are any relevant differences between 23110 and
23190
> on xen-unstable, maybe you used to start dom0 without dom0_mem before?
Nope... all my servers will always have those dom0_mem set.  It is
from xen-4.1-testing not xen-unstable for the two changeset.

Thanks.

Kindest regards,
Giam Teck Choon

On Tue, 22 Nov 2011, Teck Choon Giam wrote:
> >> >> That means default value changed if it is unset for
autoballoon?
> >> >> Original one is commented with #autoballoon = 1 in
/etc/xen/xl.conf so
> >> >> it is unset I guess so the default value for autoballoon
for c/s 23110
> >> >> is autoballoon=0 where c/s 23190 is autoballoon=1?
� Just some
> >> >> guessing... ...
> >
> > Autoballoon and dom0_mem are incompatible.
> > I don''t think there are any relevant differences between
23110 and 23190
> > on xen-unstable, maybe you used to start dom0 without dom0_mem before?
> 
> Nope... all my servers will always have those dom0_mem set.  It is
> from xen-4.1-testing not xen-unstable for the two changeset.
I still cannot see anything in that range. However as I said before, it
is expected that with dom0_mem set autoballoon needs to be disabled.

Maybe it is worth documenting this somewhere, any suggestions where?
--8323329-1770525608-1322045793=:31179
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

--8323329-1770525608-1322045793=:31179--

On Wed, 2011-11-23 at 10:56 +0000, Stefano Stabellini
wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Nov 2011, Teck Choon Giam wrote:
> > >> >> That means default value changed if it is unset for
autoballoon?
> > >> >> Original one is commented with #autoballoon = 1 in
/etc/xen/xl.conf so
> > >> >> it is unset I guess so the default value for
autoballoon for c/s 23110
> > >> >> is autoballoon=0 where c/s 23190 is autoballoon=1?
� Just some
> > >> >> guessing... ...
> > >
> > > Autoballoon and dom0_mem are incompatible.
> > > I don't think there are any relevant differences between
23110 and 23190
> > > on xen-unstable, maybe you used to start dom0 without dom0_mem
before?
> > 
> > Nope... all my servers will always have those dom0_mem set.  It is
> > from xen-4.1-testing not xen-unstable for the two changeset.
> 
> I still cannot see anything in that range. However as I said before, it
> is expected that with dom0_mem set autoballoon needs to be disabled.
We still haven't seen the full node IDs of the changesets which I asked
for so it is not obvious that we are actually looking at the same range
of changesets...
> Maybe it is worth documenting this somewhere, any suggestions where?
xl man page? Perhaps we also need a separate /etc/xl.cfg (or whatever
the path is) page?

If there is anywhere on the wiki which recommends dom0_mem= (and there
should be) it should simultaneously mention this setting. As should any
"getting started" page.

On the other hand I'm not sure why autoballoon and dom0_mem play so
badly together. Surely if dom0_mem is used autoballon should just see
that there is plenty of free RAM in the system and not do anything?

Ian.




_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

2011/11/23 Stefano Stabellini
<stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>:
> Maybe it is worth documenting this somewhere, any suggestions where?
A note should be added here:
http://wiki.xen.org/xenwiki/XenBooting.html (I can''t find this page on
the new wiki, but this should be migrated).

Also in the xm/xl config file and probably in the man page for xl.cfg
and xend-config.sxp.

On Wed, 23 Nov 2011, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-11-23 at 10:56 +0000, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Tue, 22 Nov 2011, Teck Choon Giam wrote:
> > > >> >> That means default value changed if it is unset
for autoballoon?
> > > >> >> Original one is commented with #autoballoon = 1
in /etc/xen/xl.conf so
> > > >> >> it is unset I guess so the default value for
autoballoon for c/s 23110
> > > >> >> is autoballoon=0 where c/s 23190 is
autoballoon=1? � Just some
> > > >> >> guessing... ...
> > > >
> > > > Autoballoon and dom0_mem are incompatible.
> > > > I don''t think there are any relevant differences
between 23110 and 23190
> > > > on xen-unstable, maybe you used to start dom0 without
dom0_mem before?
> > > 
> > > Nope... all my servers will always have those dom0_mem set.  It
is
> > > from xen-4.1-testing not xen-unstable for the two changeset.
> > 
> > I still cannot see anything in that range. However as I said before,
it
> > is expected that with dom0_mem set autoballoon needs to be disabled.
> 
> We still haven''t seen the full node IDs of the changesets which I
asked
> for so it is not obvious that we are actually looking at the same range
> of changesets...
> 
> > Maybe it is worth documenting this somewhere, any suggestions where?
> 
> xl man page? Perhaps we also need a separate /etc/xl.cfg (or whatever
> the path is) page?
> 
> If there is anywhere on the wiki which recommends dom0_mem= (and there
> should be) it should simultaneously mention this setting. As should any
> "getting started" page.
> 
> On the other hand I''m not sure why autoballoon and dom0_mem play
so
> badly together. Surely if dom0_mem is used autoballon should just see
> that there is plenty of free RAM in the system and not do anything?
 
Because one of the "memory slack" paramters needed by autoballoon is

totalmemory - dom0_memory_at_boot

fortunately libxl is smart enough to trim it to 15% of the total memory
of the system, just in case a user forgot to disable autoballon but set
dom0_mem.
Ah! Now that you make me think about it, I bet the failure comes from a
system that is missing:

libxl: Introduce a maximum limit for free_mem_slack (re (dom0) ballooning)
    
    This fixes this message:
     libxl: error: libxl.c:2921:libxl_set_memory_target new target
                   for dom0 is below the minimum threshold
    which can occur spuriously if dom0_mem is specified and xl
    autoballoning is left turned on.
--8323329-90971075-1322047440=:31179
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

--8323329-90971075-1322047440=:31179--

On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 7:07 PM, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>
wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-11-23 at 10:56 +0000, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Nov 2011, Teck Choon Giam wrote:
>> > >> >> That means default value changed if it is unset
for autoballoon?
>> > >> >> Original one is commented with #autoballoon = 1
in /etc/xen/xl.conf so
>> > >> >> it is unset I guess so the default value for
autoballoon for c/s 23110
>> > >> >> is autoballoon=0 where c/s 23190 is
autoballoon=1? � Just some
>> > >> >> guessing... ...
>> > >
>> > > Autoballoon and dom0_mem are incompatible.
>> > > I don't think there are any relevant differences between
23110 and 23190
>> > > on xen-unstable, maybe you used to start dom0 without
dom0_mem before?
>> >
>> > Nope... all my servers will always have those dom0_mem set.  It is
>> > from xen-4.1-testing not xen-unstable for the two changeset.
>>
>> I still cannot see anything in that range. However as I said before, it
>> is expected that with dom0_mem set autoballoon needs to be disabled.
>
> We still haven't seen the full node IDs of the changesets which I asked
> for so it is not obvious that we are actually looking at the same range
> of changesets...
Sorry, I am actually not sure what ID you are asking :(

Changesets details as below:

changeset:   23110:4d5c76248de3
user:        Roger Pau Monne <roger.pau@entel.upc.edu>
date:        Sat Jul 23 09:01:25 2011 +0100
summary:     xend: remove PCI device listing from NetBSD, since it's Linux

changeset:   23190:5a00ccfc6391
user:        Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
date:        Fri Nov 18 13:38:05 2011 +0000
summary:     x86: re-inject emulated level pirqs in PV on HVM guests
if still asserted

>
>> Maybe it is worth documenting this somewhere, any suggestions where?
>
> xl man page? Perhaps we also need a separate /etc/xl.cfg (or whatever
> the path is) page?
Shouldn't it be xl.conf instead of xl.cfg?  xl man page will helps a
lot especially for those of us switching from xm to xl.
>
> If there is anywhere on the wiki which recommends dom0_mem= (and there
> should be) it should simultaneously mention this setting. As should any
> "getting started" page.
>
> On the other hand I'm not sure why autoballoon and dom0_mem play so
> badly together. Surely if dom0_mem is used autoballon should just see
> that there is plenty of free RAM in the system and not do anything?
>
> Ian.
From this experience, at least I learn more about xl and what
configuration should be set for my usage/environment.  Like for
example, when I used xl create hvmdomain... those iptables forward
rule chains are created as well for its vif and tap but when xl
trigger hvmdomain power or xl shutdown hvmdomain... those iptables
forward rule chains are still left intact :(  This isn't big issue for
me as I have created script to remove those though.  Anyway, I will
bring this up when you guys going to release xen-4.2-rc... ... as this
thread is not for me I know.

Thanks all ;)

Kindest regards,
Giam Teck Choon

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

On Wed, 2011-11-23 at 11:23 +0000, Stefano Stabellini
wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Nov 2011, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Wed, 2011-11-23 at 10:56 +0000, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > On Tue, 22 Nov 2011, Teck Choon Giam wrote:
> > > > >> >> That means default value changed if it is
unset for autoballoon?
> > > > >> >> Original one is commented with
#autoballoon = 1 in /etc/xen/xl.conf so
> > > > >> >> it is unset I guess so the default value
for autoballoon for c/s 23110
> > > > >> >> is autoballoon=0 where c/s 23190 is
autoballoon=1? � Just some
> > > > >> >> guessing... ...
> > > > >
> > > > > Autoballoon and dom0_mem are incompatible.
> > > > > I don't think there are any relevant differences
between 23110 and 23190
> > > > > on xen-unstable, maybe you used to start dom0 without
dom0_mem before?
> > > > 
> > > > Nope... all my servers will always have those dom0_mem set. 
It is
> > > > from xen-4.1-testing not xen-unstable for the two changeset.
> > > 
> > > I still cannot see anything in that range. However as I said
before, it
> > > is expected that with dom0_mem set autoballoon needs to be
disabled.
> > 
> > We still haven't seen the full node IDs of the changesets which I
asked
> > for so it is not obvious that we are actually looking at the same
range
> > of changesets...
> > 
> > > Maybe it is worth documenting this somewhere, any suggestions
where?
> > 
> > xl man page? Perhaps we also need a separate /etc/xl.cfg (or whatever
> > the path is) page?
> > 
> > If there is anywhere on the wiki which recommends dom0_mem= (and there
> > should be) it should simultaneously mention this setting. As should
any
> > "getting started" page.
> > 
> > On the other hand I'm not sure why autoballoon and dom0_mem play
so
> > badly together. Surely if dom0_mem is used autoballon should just see
> > that there is plenty of free RAM in the system and not do anything?
>  
> Because one of the "memory slack" paramters needed by autoballoon
is
> 
> totalmemory - dom0_memory_at_boot
libxl gets dom0_memory_at_boot via the dominfo (in
libxl__fill_dom0_memory_info which I assume happens before any
potentially autoballooning) which should take dom0_mem into account,
doesn't it?
> fortunately libxl is smart enough to trim it to 15% of the total memory
> of the system, just in case a user forgot to disable autoballon but set
> dom0_mem.
> Ah! Now that you make me think about it, I bet the failure comes from a
> system that is missing:
> 
> libxl: Introduce a maximum limit for free_mem_slack (re (dom0) ballooning)
>     
>     This fixes this message:
>      libxl: error: libxl.c:2921:libxl_set_memory_target new target
>                    for dom0 is below the minimum threshold
>     which can occur spuriously if dom0_mem is specified and xl
>     autoballoning is left turned on.
It's in 4.1-testing as 22210:4d95192b2fc8.


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

On Wed, 2011-11-23 at 11:30 +0000, Teck Choon Giam
wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 7:07 PM, Ian Campbell
<Ian.Campbell@citrix.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2011-11-23 at 10:56 +0000, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> >> On Tue, 22 Nov 2011, Teck Choon Giam wrote:
> >> > >> >> That means default value changed if it is
unset for autoballoon?
> >> > >> >> Original one is commented with #autoballoon
= 1 in /etc/xen/xl.conf so
> >> > >> >> it is unset I guess so the default value
for autoballoon for c/s 23110
> >> > >> >> is autoballoon=0 where c/s 23190 is
autoballoon=1? � Just some
> >> > >> >> guessing... ...
> >> > >
> >> > > Autoballoon and dom0_mem are incompatible.
> >> > > I don't think there are any relevant differences
between 23110 and 23190
> >> > > on xen-unstable, maybe you used to start dom0 without
dom0_mem before?
> >> >
> >> > Nope... all my servers will always have those dom0_mem set. 
It is
> >> > from xen-4.1-testing not xen-unstable for the two changeset.
> >>
> >> I still cannot see anything in that range. However as I said
before, it
> >> is expected that with dom0_mem set autoballoon needs to be
disabled.
> >
> > We still haven't seen the full node IDs of the changesets which I
asked
> > for so it is not obvious that we are actually looking at the same
range
> > of changesets...
> 
> Sorry, I am actually not sure what ID you are asking :(
> 
> Changesets details as below:
> 
> changeset:   23110:4d5c76248de3
The "23110" bit here is only locally relevant to the repo you are
looking at so you cannot reliably identify a changeset to someone else
using that number. Only the "4d5c76248de3" is a global identifier and
can therefore be exchanged.
> user:        Roger Pau Monne <roger.pau@entel.upc.edu>
> date:        Sat Jul 23 09:01:25 2011 +0100
> summary:     xend: remove PCI device listing from NetBSD, since it's
Linux
> 
> changeset:   23190:5a00ccfc6391
> user:        Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
> date:        Fri Nov 18 13:38:05 2011 +0000
> summary:     x86: re-inject emulated level pirqs in PV on HVM guests
> if still asserted

Unfortunately I still don't see anything relevant between these
changesets so I've no idea why this seems to be a new issue. Are you
_positive_ that you didn't change anything else about your system
configuration on upgrade?
> >> Maybe it is worth documenting this somewhere, any suggestions
where?
> >
> > xl man page? Perhaps we also need a separate /etc/xl.cfg (or whatever
> > the path is) page?
> 
> Shouldn't it be xl.conf instead of xl.cfg?  xl man page will helps a
> lot especially for those of us switching from xm to xl.
It should match the actual filename which does appear to be xl.conf not
cfg.
> 
> >
> > If there is anywhere on the wiki which recommends dom0_mem= (and there
> > should be) it should simultaneously mention this setting. As should
any
> > "getting started" page.
> >
> > On the other hand I'm not sure why autoballoon and dom0_mem play
so
> > badly together. Surely if dom0_mem is used autoballon should just see
> > that there is plenty of free RAM in the system and not do anything?
> >
> > Ian.
> 
> From this experience, at least I learn more about xl and what
> configuration should be set for my usage/environment.  Like for
> example, when I used xl create hvmdomain... those iptables forward
> rule chains are created as well for its vif and tap but when xl
> trigger hvmdomain power or xl shutdown hvmdomain... those iptables
> forward rule chains are still left intact :(  This isn't big issue for
> me as I have created script to remove those though.  Anyway, I will
> bring this up when you guys going to release xen-4.2-rc... ... as this
> thread is not for me I know.
That sounds like a bug, there's no need to wait for an rc release to
report a bug.

Ian.
> 
> Thanks all ;)
> 
> Kindest regards,
> Giam Teck Choon


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 7:34 PM, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>
wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-11-23 at 11:30 +0000, Teck Choon Giam wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 7:07 PM, Ian Campbell
<Ian.Campbell@citrix.com> wrote:
>> > On Wed, 2011-11-23 at 10:56 +0000, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 22 Nov 2011, Teck Choon Giam wrote:
>> >> > >> >> That means default value changed if it
is unset for autoballoon?
>> >> > >> >> Original one is commented with
#autoballoon = 1 in /etc/xen/xl.conf so
>> >> > >> >> it is unset I guess so the default
value for autoballoon for c/s 23110
>> >> > >> >> is autoballoon=0 where c/s 23190 is
autoballoon=1? � Just some
>> >> > >> >> guessing... ...
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Autoballoon and dom0_mem are incompatible.
>> >> > > I don't think there are any relevant differences
between 23110 and 23190
>> >> > > on xen-unstable, maybe you used to start dom0
without dom0_mem before?
>> >> >
>> >> > Nope... all my servers will always have those dom0_mem
set.  It is
>> >> > from xen-4.1-testing not xen-unstable for the two
changeset.
>> >>
>> >> I still cannot see anything in that range. However as I said
before, it
>> >> is expected that with dom0_mem set autoballoon needs to be
disabled.
>> >
>> > We still haven't seen the full node IDs of the changesets
which I asked
>> > for so it is not obvious that we are actually looking at the same
range
>> > of changesets...
>>
>> Sorry, I am actually not sure what ID you are asking :(
>>
>> Changesets details as below:
>>
>> changeset:   23110:4d5c76248de3
>
> The "23110" bit here is only locally relevant to the repo you are
> looking at so you cannot reliably identify a changeset to someone else
> using that number. Only the "4d5c76248de3" is a global identifier
and
> can therefore be exchanged.
Understood :)
>
>> user:        Roger Pau Monne <roger.pau@entel.upc.edu>
>> date:        Sat Jul 23 09:01:25 2011 +0100
>> summary:     xend: remove PCI device listing from NetBSD, since
it's Linux
>>
>> changeset:   23190:5a00ccfc6391
>> user:        Stefano Stabellini
<stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
>> date:        Fri Nov 18 13:38:05 2011 +0000
>> summary:     x86: re-inject emulated level pirqs in PV on HVM guests
>> if still asserted
>
>
> Unfortunately I still don't see anything relevant between these
> changesets so I've no idea why this seems to be a new issue. Are you
> _positive_ that you didn't change anything else about your system
> configuration on upgrade?
I don't change settings once it is deployed and in production use for
xen servers.  In fact, all will be identical just the amount of memory
to allocate to dom0 are different depending on the server total amount
of RAM.
>
>> >> Maybe it is worth documenting this somewhere, any suggestions
where?
>> >
>> > xl man page? Perhaps we also need a separate /etc/xl.cfg (or
whatever
>> > the path is) page?
>>
>> Shouldn't it be xl.conf instead of xl.cfg?  xl man page will helps
a
>> lot especially for those of us switching from xm to xl.
>
> It should match the actual filename which does appear to be xl.conf not
> cfg.
Oh ok.  In fact, if got additional like man xl.conf will be better :p
>
>>
>> >
>> > If there is anywhere on the wiki which recommends dom0_mem= (and
there
>> > should be) it should simultaneously mention this setting. As
should any
>> > "getting started" page.
>> >
>> > On the other hand I'm not sure why autoballoon and dom0_mem
play so
>> > badly together. Surely if dom0_mem is used autoballon should just
see
>> > that there is plenty of free RAM in the system and not do
anything?
>> >
>> > Ian.
>>
>> From this experience, at least I learn more about xl and what
>> configuration should be set for my usage/environment.  Like for
>> example, when I used xl create hvmdomain... those iptables forward
>> rule chains are created as well for its vif and tap but when xl
>> trigger hvmdomain power or xl shutdown hvmdomain... those iptables
>> forward rule chains are still left intact :(  This isn't big issue
for
>> me as I have created script to remove those though.  Anyway, I will
>> bring this up when you guys going to release xen-4.2-rc... ... as this
>> thread is not for me I know.
>
> That sounds like a bug, there's no need to wait for an rc release to
> report a bug.
I think I reported once before... let see... here:
http://old-list-archives.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2011-04/msg00972.html

Thanks.

Kindest regards,
Giam Teck Choon

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

On Wed, 2011-11-23 at 11:46 +0000, Teck Choon Giam
wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 7:34 PM, Ian Campbell
<Ian.Campbell@citrix.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2011-11-23 at 11:30 +0000, Teck Choon Giam wrote:
> >> On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 7:07 PM, Ian Campbell
<Ian.Campbell@citrix.com> wrote:
> >> > On Wed, 2011-11-23 at 10:56 +0000, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 22 Nov 2011, Teck Choon Giam wrote:
> >> >> > >> >> That means default value changed
if it is unset for autoballoon?
> >> >> > >> >> Original one is commented with
#autoballoon = 1 in /etc/xen/xl.conf so
> >> >> > >> >> it is unset I guess so the default
value for autoballoon for c/s 23110
> >> >> > >> >> is autoballoon=0 where c/s 23190
is autoballoon=1? � Just some
> >> >> > >> >> guessing... ...
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Autoballoon and dom0_mem are incompatible.
> >> >> > > I don't think there are any relevant
differences between 23110 and 23190
> >> >> > > on xen-unstable, maybe you used to start dom0
without dom0_mem before?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Nope... all my servers will always have those
dom0_mem set.  It is
> >> >> > from xen-4.1-testing not xen-unstable for the two
changeset.
> >> >>
> >> >> I still cannot see anything in that range. However as I
said before, it
> >> >> is expected that with dom0_mem set autoballoon needs to
be disabled.
> >> >
> >> > We still haven't seen the full node IDs of the changesets
which I asked
> >> > for so it is not obvious that we are actually looking at the
same range
> >> > of changesets...
> >>
> >> Sorry, I am actually not sure what ID you are asking :(
> >>
> >> Changesets details as below:
> >>
> >> changeset:   23110:4d5c76248de3
> >
> > The "23110" bit here is only locally relevant to the repo
you are
> > looking at so you cannot reliably identify a changeset to someone else
> > using that number. Only the "4d5c76248de3" is a global
identifier and
> > can therefore be exchanged.
> 
> Understood :)
> 
> >
> >> user:        Roger Pau Monne <roger.pau@entel.upc.edu>
> >> date:        Sat Jul 23 09:01:25 2011 +0100
> >> summary:     xend: remove PCI device listing from NetBSD, since
it's Linux
> >>
> >> changeset:   23190:5a00ccfc6391
> >> user:        Stefano Stabellini
<stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
> >> date:        Fri Nov 18 13:38:05 2011 +0000
> >> summary:     x86: re-inject emulated level pirqs in PV on HVM
guests
> >> if still asserted
> >
> >
> > Unfortunately I still don't see anything relevant between these
> > changesets so I've no idea why this seems to be a new issue. Are
you
> > _positive_ that you didn't change anything else about your system
> > configuration on upgrade?
> 
> I don't change settings once it is deployed and in production use for
> xen servers.  In fact, all will be identical just the amount of memory
> to allocate to dom0 are different depending on the server total amount
> of RAM.
The message is (I think) triggered based on the %age of memory allocated
to dom0 so if different machines are different sizes and therefore have
different thresholds that might explain why it is only seen sometimes.
> > That sounds like a bug, there's no need to wait for an rc release
to
> > report a bug.
> 
> I think I reported once before... let see... here:
>
http://old-list-archives.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2011-04/msg00972.html
I'm sorry this appears to have slipped under the radar at the time. I
think it would be worth reposting in a new thread.

Ian.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Kindest regards,
> Giam Teck Choon


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>
wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-11-23 at 11:46 +0000, Teck Choon Giam wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 7:34 PM, Ian Campbell
<Ian.Campbell@citrix.com> wrote:
>> > On Wed, 2011-11-23 at 11:30 +0000, Teck Choon Giam wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 7:07 PM, Ian Campbell
<Ian.Campbell@citrix.com> wrote:
>> >> > On Wed, 2011-11-23 at 10:56 +0000, Stefano Stabellini
wrote:
>> >> >> On Tue, 22 Nov 2011, Teck Choon Giam wrote:
>> >> >> > >> >> That means default value
changed if it is unset for autoballoon?
>> >> >> > >> >> Original one is commented with
#autoballoon = 1 in /etc/xen/xl.conf so
>> >> >> > >> >> it is unset I guess so the
default value for autoballoon for c/s 23110
>> >> >> > >> >> is autoballoon=0 where c/s
23190 is autoballoon=1? � Just some
>> >> >> > >> >> guessing... ...
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > Autoballoon and dom0_mem are incompatible.
>> >> >> > > I don't think there are any relevant
differences between 23110 and 23190
>> >> >> > > on xen-unstable, maybe you used to start
dom0 without dom0_mem before?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Nope... all my servers will always have those
dom0_mem set.  It is
>> >> >> > from xen-4.1-testing not xen-unstable for the
two changeset.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I still cannot see anything in that range. However as
I said before, it
>> >> >> is expected that with dom0_mem set autoballoon needs
to be disabled.
>> >> >
>> >> > We still haven't seen the full node IDs of the
changesets which I asked
>> >> > for so it is not obvious that we are actually looking at
the same range
>> >> > of changesets...
>> >>
>> >> Sorry, I am actually not sure what ID you are asking :(
>> >>
>> >> Changesets details as below:
>> >>
>> >> changeset:   23110:4d5c76248de3
>> >
>> > The "23110" bit here is only locally relevant to the
repo you are
>> > looking at so you cannot reliably identify a changeset to someone
else
>> > using that number. Only the "4d5c76248de3" is a global
identifier and
>> > can therefore be exchanged.
>>
>> Understood :)
>>
>> >
>> >> user:        Roger Pau Monne <roger.pau@entel.upc.edu>
>> >> date:        Sat Jul 23 09:01:25 2011 +0100
>> >> summary:     xend: remove PCI device listing from NetBSD,
since it's Linux
>> >>
>> >> changeset:   23190:5a00ccfc6391
>> >> user:        Stefano Stabellini
<stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
>> >> date:        Fri Nov 18 13:38:05 2011 +0000
>> >> summary:     x86: re-inject emulated level pirqs in PV on HVM
guests
>> >> if still asserted
>> >
>> >
>> > Unfortunately I still don't see anything relevant between
these
>> > changesets so I've no idea why this seems to be a new issue.
Are you
>> > _positive_ that you didn't change anything else about your
system
>> > configuration on upgrade?
>>
>> I don't change settings once it is deployed and in production use
for
>> xen servers.  In fact, all will be identical just the amount of memory
>> to allocate to dom0 are different depending on the server total amount
>> of RAM.
>
> The message is (I think) triggered based on the %age of memory allocated
> to dom0 so if different machines are different sizes and therefore have
> different thresholds that might explain why it is only seen sometimes.
Ok.
>> > That sounds like a bug, there's no need to wait for an rc
release to
>> > report a bug.
>>
>> I think I reported once before... let see... here:
>>
http://old-list-archives.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2011-04/msg00972.html
>
> I'm sorry this appears to have slipped under the radar at the time. I
> think it would be worth reposting in a new thread.
I will repost later.  Just one question... ... do you guys prefer such
reports to be posted in xen-users or xen-devel mailing list?
Sometimes I wonder which one is more suitable... ...

Thanks.

Kindest regards,
Giam Teck Choon

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

On Wed, 2011-11-23 at 11:59 +0000, Teck Choon Giam
wrote:
> I will repost later.  Just one question... ... do you guys prefer such
> reports to be posted in xen-users or xen-devel mailing list?
> Sometimes I wonder which one is more suitable... ...
Generally most issues are best taken to xen-users in the first instance
(since the most common cause is misconfiguration or user error).
xen-devel is appropriate when there has been shown to be a bug in the
code or xen-users has proved unsuccessful etc.

Looking at your original mail I think you might want to include some
more details and logs etc when you repost.
http://wiki.xen.org/wiki/Reporting_Bugs_against_Xen has a list of
various useful logs to include.

Ian.

On Wed, 23 Nov 2011, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > On the other hand I''m not sure why autoballoon and
dom0_mem play so
> > > badly together. Surely if dom0_mem is used autoballon should just
see
> > > that there is plenty of free RAM in the system and not do
anything?
> >  
> > Because one of the "memory slack" paramters needed by
autoballoon is
> > 
> > totalmemory - dom0_memory_at_boot
> 
> libxl gets dom0_memory_at_boot via the dominfo (in
> libxl__fill_dom0_memory_info which I assume happens before any
> potentially autoballooning) which should take dom0_mem into account,
> doesn''t it?
It does, in the sense that the memory slack is trimmered to max 15% of
total memory.
Basically there is no way to calculate this parameter if dom0_mem is
set, so we conservatively set it to 15%.

On Wed, 2011-11-23 at 13:57 +0000, Stefano Stabellini
wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Nov 2011, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > > On the other hand I''m not sure why autoballoon and
dom0_mem play so
> > > > badly together. Surely if dom0_mem is used autoballon should
just see
> > > > that there is plenty of free RAM in the system and not do
anything?
> > >  
> > > Because one of the "memory slack" paramters needed by
autoballoon is
> > > 
> > > totalmemory - dom0_memory_at_boot
> > 
> > libxl gets dom0_memory_at_boot via the dominfo (in
> > libxl__fill_dom0_memory_info which I assume happens before any
> > potentially autoballooning) which should take dom0_mem into account,
> > doesn''t it?
> 
> It does, in the sense that the memory slack is trimmered to max 15% of
> total memory.
> Basically there is no way to calculate this parameter if dom0_mem is
> set, so we conservatively set it to 15%.
What I meant was that dom0_memory_at_boot comes from
XEN_SYSCTL_getdomaininfolist and is therefore the value of the dom0_mem
parameter (give or take a wiggle, I suppose), when called from
libxl__fill_dom0_memory_info (i.e. before any auto ballooning has taken
place). In other words there is a way to calculate this parameter...

Ian.

On Wed, 23 Nov 2011, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-11-23 at 13:57 +0000, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Wed, 23 Nov 2011, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > > > On the other hand I''m not sure why autoballoon
and dom0_mem play so
> > > > > badly together. Surely if dom0_mem is used autoballon
should just see
> > > > > that there is plenty of free RAM in the system and not
do anything?
> > > >  
> > > > Because one of the "memory slack" paramters needed
by autoballoon is
> > > > 
> > > > totalmemory - dom0_memory_at_boot
> > > 
> > > libxl gets dom0_memory_at_boot via the dominfo (in
> > > libxl__fill_dom0_memory_info which I assume happens before any
> > > potentially autoballooning) which should take dom0_mem into
account,
> > > doesn''t it?
> > 
> > It does, in the sense that the memory slack is trimmered to max 15% of
> > total memory.
> > Basically there is no way to calculate this parameter if dom0_mem is
> > set, so we conservatively set it to 15%.
> 
> What I meant was that dom0_memory_at_boot comes from
> XEN_SYSCTL_getdomaininfolist and is therefore the value of the dom0_mem
> parameter (give or take a wiggle, I suppose), when called from
> libxl__fill_dom0_memory_info (i.e. before any auto ballooning has taken
> place). In other words there is a way to calculate this parameter...
we don''t want to know the value of the dom0_mem parameter, we need the
amount of memory dom0 would have if dom0_mem was NOT passed to Xen.

On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 8:53 PM, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>
wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-11-23 at 11:59 +0000, Teck Choon Giam wrote:
>> I will repost later.  Just one question... ... do you guys prefer such
>> reports to be posted in xen-users or xen-devel mailing list?
>> Sometimes I wonder which one is more suitable... ...
>
> Generally most issues are best taken to xen-users in the first instance
> (since the most common cause is misconfiguration or user error).
> xen-devel is appropriate when there has been shown to be a bug in the
> code or xen-users has proved unsuccessful etc.
>
> Looking at your original mail I think you might want to include some
> more details and logs etc when you repost.
> http://wiki.xen.org/wiki/Reporting_Bugs_against_Xen has a list of
> various useful logs to include.
Noted and thanks.

Kindest regards,
Giam Teck Choon

Roger Pau Monné writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] libxl: error:
libxl.c:2150:libxl_set_memory_target new target 0 for dom0 is below the minimum
threshold"):
> 2011/11/23 Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>:
> > Maybe it is worth documenting this somewhere, any suggestions where?
> 
> A note should be added here:
> http://wiki.xen.org/xenwiki/XenBooting.html (I can''t find this
page on
> the new wiki, but this should be migrated).
Lars, do you have an opinion ?
> Also in the xm/xl config file and probably in the man page for xl.cfg
> and xend-config.sxp.
Patches gratefully accepted :-).

Thanks,
Ian.

>> A note should be added here:
>> http://wiki.xen.org/xenwiki/XenBooting.html (I can''t find this
page on
>> the new wiki, but this should be migrated).
>
>Lars, do you have an opinion ?
Yes, this page is on the list of pages which still need to be migrated (see
http://tinyurl.com/63ts9oc). I have not gotten round to it yet and relatively
few others have in fact volunteered to migrate pages. On the other hand, this
may be a page which is better suited to a Man page (and  x-reffed from the
wiki). Part of why I have not done this, is because there is a similar page
http://wiki.xen.org/wiki/XenHypervisorBootOptions which looks as if it needed to
be merged with http://wiki.xen.org/xenwiki/XenBooting.html .
	
Instructions on how to migrate pages and the protocol are here
http://wiki.xen.org/wiki/Wiki_Community/Migration_Instructions_from_Old_to_New_Xen_Wiki

I have a long backlog of stuff to do and cannot promise that I can migrate all
the remaining wiki pages this week or next week.

Regards
Lars

-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Jackson [mailto:Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com] 
Sent: 01 December 2011 17:59
To: Roger Pau Monné; Lars Kurth
Cc: Stefano Stabellini; xen-devel@lists.xensource.com; Teck Choon Giam; Ian
Campbell
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] libxl: error: libxl.c:2150:libxl_set_memory_target new
target 0 for dom0 is below the minimum threshold

Roger Pau Monné writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] libxl: error:
libxl.c:2150:libxl_set_memory_target new target 0 for dom0 is below the minimum
threshold"):
> 2011/11/23 Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>:
> > Maybe it is worth documenting this somewhere, any suggestions where?
> 
> A note should be added here:
> http://wiki.xen.org/xenwiki/XenBooting.html (I can''t find this
page on
> the new wiki, but this should be migrated).
Lars, do you have an opinion ?
> Also in the xm/xl config file and probably in the man page for xl.cfg
> and xend-config.sxp.
Patches gratefully accepted :-).

Thanks,
Ian.