Re: [libvirt] getFreeMemory reporting incorrectly?

On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 03:44:50PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 02:37:57PM -0400, Hany Fahim wrote: > > Thanks Daniel, > > Is it fair to assume this fix may appear in the next release of libvirt? > > If you want to build from source, I'd appreciate feedback on whether > the following patch fixes the problem > > diff -r f204769dd197 src/xen_internal.c > --- a/src/xen_internal.c Wed Jun 03 13:52:06 2009 +0000 > +++ b/src/xen_internal.c Fri Jun 12 15:44:05 2009 +0100 > @@ -241,6 +241,15 @@ struct xen_v2s4_availheap { > > typedef struct xen_v2s4_availheap xen_v2s4_availheap; > > +struct xen_v2s5_availheap { > + uint32_t min_bitwidth; /* Smallest address width (zero if don't care). */ > + uint32_t max_bitwidth; /* Largest address width (zero if don't care). */ > + int32_t node; /* NUMA node (-1 for sum across all nodes). */ > + uint64_t avail_bytes ALIGN_64; /* Bytes available in the specified region. */ > +}; > + > +typedef struct xen_v2s5_availheap xen_v2s5_availheap; > + > > #define XEN_GETDOMAININFOLIST_ALLOC(domlist, size) \ > (hypervisor_version < 2 ? \ > @@ -650,6 +659,7 @@ struct xen_op_v2_sys { > xen_v2s3_getdomaininfolistop getdomaininfolists3; > xen_v2_getschedulerid getschedulerid; > xen_v2s4_availheap availheap; > + xen_v2s5_availheap availheap5; > uint8_t padding[128]; > } u; > }; > @@ -3125,12 +3135,18 @@ xenHypervisorNodeGetCellsFreeMemory(virC > op_sys.cmd = XEN_V2_OP_GETAVAILHEAP; > > for (i = startCell, j = 0;(i < priv->nbNodeCells) && (j < maxCells);i++,j++) { > - op_sys.u.availheap.node = i; > + if (sys_interface_version >= 5) > + op_sys.u.availheap5.node = i; > + else > + op_sys.u.availheap.node = i; > ret = xenHypervisorDoV2Sys(priv->handle, &op_sys); > if (ret < 0) { > return(-1); > } > - freeMems[j] = op_sys.u.availheap.avail_bytes; > + if (sys_interface_version >= 5) > + freeMems[j] = op_sys.u.availheap5.avail_bytes; > + else > + freeMems[j] = op_sys.u.availheap.avail_bytes; > } > return (j); > } Looks fine to me, ACK. Just one small worry, did we precisely identify when the change happened ? In xenHypervisorInit we go directly from sys_interface_version of 4 to 6, we never try 5 as far as I can see.