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] [PATCH] amd iommu: Do not adjust paging mode for dom0 de

To: Keir Fraser <keir@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] amd iommu: Do not adjust paging mode for dom0 devices
From: Wei Wang2 <wei.wang2@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 14:30:37 +0100
Cc: "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Mon, 07 Feb 2011 05:33:48 -0800
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <C9757E44.12F14%keir@xxxxxxx>
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>
References: <C9757E44.12F14%keir@xxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: KMail/1.9.6 (enterprise 20070904.708012)
On Monday 07 February 2011 11:47:32 Keir Fraser wrote:
> On 07/02/2011 10:33, "Wei Wang2" <wei.wang2@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> And that's wrong is it? How do you know that dom0 doesn't have a whole
> >> load of memory assigned to it?
> >>
> >> The correct thing to do would be to adjust the table depth according to
> >> the largest page number currently mapped in the table. Or just stick
> >> with four levels always if you can't do the optimisation job properly.
> >>
> >>  -- Keir
> >
> > Keir,
> > I was a little confused, are you suggesting that max_page does not
> > represent the last pfn of dom0?
>
> The global variable max_page represents the largest machine frame number in
> the system.
Yes, that is also my assumption

> The domain field d->max_pages merely represents an allocation limit for a
> domain, beyond which further allocation requests will be refused. Note it
> doesn't guarantee that the domain does not have less memory, or *more*
> memory (if max_pages got reduced below a domain's current allocation).
>
> Also, for a PV guest like dom0, where the IOMMU table is presumably a 1:1
> mapping, d->max_pages is not useful in any case because even if a guest
> has, say, only 100MB memory allocated to it, that memory can be spread
> across the entire host memory space from 0 to max_page. And max_page could
> be big!
OK, I misunderstood it. I thought d->max_pages also stands for last gfn for 
domU like max_page for the whole system.

> Personally I would suggest starting with small 2-level tables and
> dynamically increase their height as bigger mappings are added to them.
> Else stick with 4-level tables, or size tables according to global variable
> max_page. I think basing anything on d->max_pages is not a good idea.
>
>  -- Keir
How does the attached patch look like? It uses global variable max_page for pv 
and dom0 and calculate maxpfn for hvm guest. This should cover gfn holes on 
hvm guests.

Thanks,
Wei
Signed-off-by: Wei Wang <wei.wang2@xxxxxxx>

> > I was assuming max_pdx is the index number... Or are
> > you referring memory hot plug? If so, we might also need 4 level for
> > dom0.


Attachment: fix_pg_mode.patch
Description: fix_pg_mode.patch

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