[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 4/5] ix86/ioreq server: Asynchronously reset outstanding p2m_ioreq_server entries.





On 3/14/2017 9:11 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 14.03.17 at 13:18, <yu.c.zhang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 3/14/2017 6:49 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 14.03.17 at 08:42, <yu.c.zhang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 3/13/2017 7:24 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 11.03.17 at 09:42, <yu.c.zhang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 3/11/2017 12:03 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
But there's a wider understanding issue I'm having here: What is
an "entry" here? Commonly I would assume this to refer to an
individual (4k) page, but it looks like you really mean table entry,
i.e. possibly representing a 2M or 1G page.
Well, it should be an entry pointing to a 4K page(only).
For p2m_ioreq_server, we shall not meet huge page. Because they are
changed from p2m_ram_rw pages
in set_mem_type() -> p2m_change_type_one(), which calls p2m_set_entry()
with PAGE_ORDER_4K specified.
And recombination of large pages won't ever end up hitting these?
Well, by recombination I guess you refer to the POD pages? I do not
think p2m_ioreq_server
pages will be combined now, which means we do not need to worry about
recounting the
p2m_ioreq_server entries while a split happens.
No, I didn't think about PoD here. But indeed I was misremembering:
We don't currently make any attempt to transparently recreate large
pages.
Thanks Jan. So do you now think the current counting logic for
p2m_ioreq_server is correct? :-)
Yes. But please make sure you mention the 4k page dependency
at least in the commit message.

OK. Will do.

Thanks
Yu
Jan




_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.