 Home |
Products |
Support |
Community |
News |
xen-devel
[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. George, how do I allocate a few mfns and give them a virtual address? I dont find a malloc like interface to allocate random pages. Olaf _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC PATCH] Xen blkback for 2.6.40., Daniel Stodden |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 6879: regressions - FAIL, xen . org |
| Previous by Thread: | [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH 2 of 3] xentrace: use tbuf_size for overflow check, Olaf Hering |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [Xen-devel] non-contiguous allocations, Jan Beulich |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
