 Home |
Products |
Support |
Community |
News |
xen-devel
[Xen-devel] Re: non-contiguous allocations
| To: | "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | [Xen-devel] Re: non-contiguous allocations |
| From: | Olaf Hering <olaf@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 6 May 2011 20:12:34 +0200 |
| Delivery-date: | Fri, 06 May 2011 11:13:32 -0700 |
| Dkim-signature: | v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1304705555; l=893; s=domk; d=aepfle.de; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Subject:To:From: Date:X-RZG-CLASS-ID:X-RZG-AUTH; bh=UWCEWSdSitPKuFggVadW2DndpmQ=; b=gi+BmdRQS7C9jcgLZoIDeWEBCrbhn/CURuk+t5Wgg4xj7djiUwObiVbrs4GRaNutt7V ugEuBJ07icRLNGGevL1FJ++KjW5htdGUcdMiJep2h97uTALyBeA+uDZz6yuZTynl/KkMG +wNHy01IwZkOszdX1VGtEP0pmB27I28opzM= |
| Envelope-to: | www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20110418184541.GA16935@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> |
| References: | <patchbomb.1301508272@localhost> <3e95e737bc51c2295926.1301508274@localhost> <1301656691.9447.88.camel@elijah> <20110418184541.GA16935@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
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()? From which pool should the per-cpu tracebuffers get allocated? alloc_domheap_page() wants a domain, so I think thats the wrong interface. 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] Re: FC15: 32-bit PV guest crash on restore on x64_86 host, Igor Mammedov |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [Xen-devel] [PATCH 0 of 5] xentrace: non-contiguous allocation of per-cpu buffer, Olaf Hering |
| Previous by Thread: | [Xen-devel] how to check memory are all saved/restored in live migration, hotmaim |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [Xen-devel] Re: non-contiguous allocations, Keir Fraser |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
