WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [Crash-utility] xencrash fixes for xen-3.3.0

To: Dave Anderson <anderson@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [Crash-utility] xencrash fixes for xen-3.3.0
From: Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2008 16:01:46 +0100
Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Discussion list for crash utility usage, maintenance and development" <crash-utility@xxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Tue, 07 Oct 2008 08:02:09 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <48EB73B9.7000004@xxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: AckojZ3R3KkuUZSAEd2EcgAWy6hiGQ==
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] Re: [Crash-utility] xencrash fixes for xen-3.3.0
User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.4.0.080122
On 7/10/08 15:35, "Dave Anderson" <anderson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> PERCPU_SHIFT has only ever been 12 or 13 so far, and it's unlikely to ever
>> get smaller. Ongoing, we could help you out by defining some useful label in
>> our linker script. For example, __per_cpu_shift = PERCPU_SHIFT (or
>> '__per_cpu_start + PERCPU_SHIFT', as I'm not sure about creating labels
>> outside the virtual address ranges defined by the object file).
>> 
>>  -- Keir
> 
> Yep, that's fine too, but for now Oda-san's patch will suffice now as
> long as the smallest possible percpu data section on the x86 arch with
> a PERCPU_SHIFT of 13 will always overflow into a space greater than 4k.
> So I'm still curious, because I note that on a RHEL5 x86_64 hypervisor
> the per-cpu data space is 1576 bytes, and presumably smaller on an x86.
> Was there a new data structure that forced the issue?  And does it force
> the issue on both arches?

PERCPU_SHIFT has to be big enough that the per-cpu data area happens to be
smaller than 1<<PERCPU_SHIFT bytes. This relationship is not enforced at
build time but we BUG_ON() it early during boot. Indeed at some point during
3.3 development some big structs got dumped in the per-cpu area and
increased its size beyond 2^12. Hence we BUG()ed and hence we bumped to
2^13.

What this does mean is that we might, on some builds, actually have data
area < 4kB even while we have PERCPU_SHIFT==13. I think it's unlikely in
practice though since I believe we're well over the 4kB boundary now.

I don't think Xen/ia64 uses this same implementation technique. It's
probably more like Linux's percpu data area implementation.

 -- Keir




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