Re: [Xen-devel] Re: non-contiguous allocations

To:	Olaf Hering <olaf@xxxxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject:	Re: [Xen-devel] Re: non-contiguous allocations
From:	Keir Fraser <keir.xen@xxxxxxxxx>
Date:	Fri, 06 May 2011 19:46:54 +0100
Cc:
Delivery-date:	Fri, 06 May 2011 11:47:50 -0700
Dkim-signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:user-agent:date:subject:from:to:message-id :thread-topic:thread-index:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=4b8kpW+R2cuDc4hORcXOKhs7EFnfBnEOr6RaomvocCM=; b=YlZsg9WTwvrUP7KHtWFlWgZio4tMWLGS4rDUGtl1ExFrKtQSCAW1nVnJpRqfIKAUFk ydduZn90/788k1AfjKeRtFV17CkJ+VR/4a3jhRQUfnkdHH+kfQbY847Hq9ONGBj9W4i6 92glDL2NMgJmEpo3yrLnlk739qr3uNAWMxg0g=
Domainkey-signature:	a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=user-agent:date:subject:from:to:message-id:thread-topic :thread-index:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=VzaMOl/CUm7Vp1SfmWlOGJpkffxQLlre7KOw2iOgmqRZE1bzTzGW3zTOHfNn2k9ncg QWch0o0gcqqUH/Fp+BCuTxuXJJBp7dS3rXmNkGzWRRRy/85z4qJp2TRIPsklJrKp3jwD hqdb3Y4sDUPMl0/LjTeCVBTCzBTQrK+0frEt8=
Envelope-to:	www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to:	<20110506181234.GA24767@xxxxxxxxx>
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:	AcwMHffthjabuGRTjkKjzjvQIik9NQ==
Thread-topic:	[Xen-devel] Re: non-contiguous allocations
User-agent:	Microsoft-Entourage/12.29.0.110113

On 06/05/2011 19:12, "Olaf Hering" <olaf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 18, Olaf Hering wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Is there a way to allocate more than 128mb with repeated calls to
> alloc_xenheap_page()?

Yes it should just work. Are you sure you actually have more than 128MB
available (not all allocated to dom0 for example)?


>  From which pool should the per-cpu tracebuffers
> get allocated?  alloc_domheap_page() wants a domain, so I think thats
> the wrong interface.

Yes, sticking with alloc_xenheap_pages() is good.

 -- Keir

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



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

WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] Re: non-contiguous allocations