|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [PATCH v5 1/4] xen/riscv: add VM space layout
Hi Jan, On 24/04/2023 11:45, Jan Beulich wrote: On 24.04.2023 12:22, Julien Grall wrote:Hi, On 24/04/2023 10:33, Jan Beulich wrote:On 21.04.2023 16:41, Oleksii wrote:On Thu, 2023-04-20 at 14:58 +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:On 19.04.2023 17:42, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:+ * =================================================================== ========= + * Start addr | End addr | Size | VM area description + * =================================================================== ========= + * FFFFFFFFC0000000 | FFFFFFFFC0200000 | 2 MB | Xen + * FFFFFFFFC0200000 | FFFFFFFFC0600000 | 4 MB | FDT + * FFFFFFFFC0600000 | FFFFFFFFC0800000 | 2 MB | FixmapThese are all L2 slot 511 aiui, which may be worth mentioning especially since the top bits don't match the top bits further down in the table (because of the aliasing).Than I'll add one more column where I'll put slot number+ * .................. unused ..................This is covering slot 510, which again may be worth mentioning.+ * 0000003200000000 | 0000007f40000000 | 331 GB | Direct map(L2 slot: 200-509) + * 0000003100000000 | 0000003140000000 | 1 GB | Frametable(L2 slot: 196-197)1Gb is, if I'm not mistaken, a single L2 slot.Yeah, it can be misunderstood. I meant [196, 197), so 197 isn't included. I'll update the table.Also assuming a 32-byte struct page_info (I don't think you'll get away with less than that, when even Arm32 requires this much), there's a mismatch between direct map and frame table size: With 4k pages, the scaling factor would be 128 if I'm not mistaken. So perhaps you really mean 3Gb here to cover for (slightly more than) the 331Gb of memory you mean to be able to map?For RV64 page_info size will be 56-byte and 32-byte for RV32 but you are right it should 3 Gb in that case what will be enough ( taking into account both available sizes of page_info structure ).As to the plan to it being 56 bytes (i.e. like on Arm): Arm forever has had a 64-bit padding field at the end. My best guess is that the field was introduced to have a 32-byte struct on Arm32.I can't exactly remember. But I would like to rework the struct page_info on Arm64 because... But then whyartificially increase the struct from 48 to 56 bytes on Arm64? And hence why have the same oddity on RV64?... with 56 bytes, some struct page_info may cross a cache boundary.I guess that's going to be challenging, unless you mean to go further up to 64 bytes? Yes. For RISC-V, I would recommend to make sure the struct page_info will never cross a cache boundary.Since going up to 64 bytes is wasteful, Well yes. But this is a trade-off between performance and memory usage. With the current situation, you may have to pull two cache lines for struct page_info. I suspect you might see some slow down when using the grant. But I don't have any concrete numbers. and going down to 32 bytes likely isn't going to be easy, sticking to 48 bytes for now would seem reasonable to me. It may be more difficult to argue for an increase (if we notice any performance degradation) in the future because this would reduce the memory usable for every users. Anyway, I haven't fully explore the problem on Arm yet and it is possible we could deal with any performance degradation differently (e.g. re-order the field and/or slightly increasing/decreasing the size). I thought I would point it out just in case the RISC-V folks care about it. Cheers, -- Julien Grall
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |