[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] Load increase after memory upgrade (part2)
Well let me check for a longer period of time, and especially, whether the DomU is still working (can do that only from at home), but load looks pretty well after applying the patch to 3.2.8 :-D. BR, Carsten.
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
An: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>;
CC: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad@xxxxxxxxxx>; xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Carsten Schiers <carsten@xxxxxxxxxx>; Sander Eikelenboom <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
Von: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>
Gesendet: Fr 17.02.2012 16:18
Betreff: Re: [Xen-devel] Load increase after memory upgrade (part2)
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 08:56:53AM +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 15.02.12 at 20:28, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >@@ -1550,7 +1552,11 @@ static void *__vmalloc_area_node(struct vm_struct *area, gfp_t gfp_mask,
> > struct page **pages;
> > unsigned int nr_pages, array_size, i;
> > gfp_t nested_gfp = (gfp_mask & GFP_RECLAIM_MASK) | __GFP_ZERO;
> >-
> >+ gfp_t dma_mask = gfp_mask & (__GFP_DMA | __GFP_DMA32);
> >+ if (xen_pv_domain()) {
> >+ if (dma_mask == (__GFP_DMA | __GFP_DMA32))
>
> I didn't spot where you force this normally invalid combination, without
> which the change won't affect vmalloc32() in a 32-bit kernel.
>
> >+ gfp_mask &= (__GFP_DMA | __GFP_DMA32);
>
> gfp_mask &= ~(__GFP_DMA | __GFP_DMA32);
>
> Jan
Duh!
Good eyes. Thanks for catching that.
>
> >+ }
> > nr_pages = (area->size - PAGE_SIZE) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> > array_size = (nr_pages * sizeof(struct page *));
> >
>
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
