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/
Home Products Support Community News


[Xen-devel] non-contiguous allocations

To: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Xen-devel] non-contiguous allocations
From: Olaf Hering <olaf@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 20:45:41 +0200
Cc: "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 11:46:25 -0700
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1303152342; l=739; s=domk; d=aepfle.de; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Subject:Cc:To:From: Date:X-RZG-CLASS-ID:X-RZG-AUTH; bh=teCzWZoBSQkI+UiTQtIecPtAvAg=; b=eAyqPfgBuWoE9rOgAAQxZudrYMP58lOhHRI8/Ysf9xEe5g78wKjGaWNhI9izvgr6LtV lKeQdOELYD+hhCb+hZTF1l+q9NmI5kVviWhSY2B7PpQk0QqjG+pPW17BPbFapDkLpquie 0Kf7pZ6ecrXWLkEz3aTZb53xvYWvU4XTZkI=
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1301656691.9447.88.camel@elijah>
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: <patchbomb.1301508272@localhost> <3e95e737bc51c2295926.1301508274@localhost> <1301656691.9447.88.camel@elijah>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Fri, Apr 01, George Dunlap wrote:

> On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 19:04 +0100, Olaf Hering wrote:
> > Using the u16 means each cpu could in theory use up to 256MB as trace
> > buffer. However such a large allocation will currently fail on x86 due
> > to the MAX_ORDER limit.
> FWIW, I don't believe that there's any reason the allocations have to be
> contiguous any more.  I kept them contiguous to minimize the changes to
> the moving parts near a release.  But the new system has been pretty
> well tested now, so I think looking at non-contiguous allocations may be
> worthwhile.


how do I allocate a few mfns and give them a virtual address?
I dont find a malloc like interface to allocate random pages.


Xen-devel mailing list