[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH for-4.19? v5 07/10] xen: Make the maximum number of altp2m views configurable for x86
- To: Petr Beneš <w1benny@xxxxxxxxx>
- From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 09:30:38 +0200
- Autocrypt: addr=jbeulich@xxxxxxxx; keydata= xsDiBFk3nEQRBADAEaSw6zC/EJkiwGPXbWtPxl2xCdSoeepS07jW8UgcHNurfHvUzogEq5xk hu507c3BarVjyWCJOylMNR98Yd8VqD9UfmX0Hb8/BrA+Hl6/DB/eqGptrf4BSRwcZQM32aZK 7Pj2XbGWIUrZrd70x1eAP9QE3P79Y2oLrsCgbZJfEwCgvz9JjGmQqQkRiTVzlZVCJYcyGGsD /0tbFCzD2h20ahe8rC1gbb3K3qk+LpBtvjBu1RY9drYk0NymiGbJWZgab6t1jM7sk2vuf0Py O9Hf9XBmK0uE9IgMaiCpc32XV9oASz6UJebwkX+zF2jG5I1BfnO9g7KlotcA/v5ClMjgo6Gl MDY4HxoSRu3i1cqqSDtVlt+AOVBJBACrZcnHAUSuCXBPy0jOlBhxPqRWv6ND4c9PH1xjQ3NP nxJuMBS8rnNg22uyfAgmBKNLpLgAGVRMZGaGoJObGf72s6TeIqKJo/LtggAS9qAUiuKVnygo 3wjfkS9A3DRO+SpU7JqWdsveeIQyeyEJ/8PTowmSQLakF+3fote9ybzd880fSmFuIEJldWxp Y2ggPGpiZXVsaWNoQHN1c2UuY29tPsJgBBMRAgAgBQJZN5xEAhsDBgsJCAcDAgQVAggDBBYC AwECHgECF4AACgkQoDSui/t3IH4J+wCfQ5jHdEjCRHj23O/5ttg9r9OIruwAn3103WUITZee e7Sbg12UgcQ5lv7SzsFNBFk3nEQQCACCuTjCjFOUdi5Nm244F+78kLghRcin/awv+IrTcIWF hUpSs1Y91iQQ7KItirz5uwCPlwejSJDQJLIS+QtJHaXDXeV6NI0Uef1hP20+y8qydDiVkv6l IreXjTb7DvksRgJNvCkWtYnlS3mYvQ9NzS9PhyALWbXnH6sIJd2O9lKS1Mrfq+y0IXCP10eS FFGg+Av3IQeFatkJAyju0PPthyTqxSI4lZYuJVPknzgaeuJv/2NccrPvmeDg6Coe7ZIeQ8Yj t0ARxu2xytAkkLCel1Lz1WLmwLstV30g80nkgZf/wr+/BXJW/oIvRlonUkxv+IbBM3dX2OV8 AmRv1ySWPTP7AAMFB/9PQK/VtlNUJvg8GXj9ootzrteGfVZVVT4XBJkfwBcpC/XcPzldjv+3 HYudvpdNK3lLujXeA5fLOH+Z/G9WBc5pFVSMocI71I8bT8lIAzreg0WvkWg5V2WZsUMlnDL9 mpwIGFhlbM3gfDMs7MPMu8YQRFVdUvtSpaAs8OFfGQ0ia3LGZcjA6Ik2+xcqscEJzNH+qh8V m5jjp28yZgaqTaRbg3M/+MTbMpicpZuqF4rnB0AQD12/3BNWDR6bmh+EkYSMcEIpQmBM51qM EKYTQGybRCjpnKHGOxG0rfFY1085mBDZCH5Kx0cl0HVJuQKC+dV2ZY5AqjcKwAxpE75MLFkr wkkEGBECAAkFAlk3nEQCGwwACgkQoDSui/t3IH7nnwCfcJWUDUFKdCsBH/E5d+0ZnMQi+G0A nAuWpQkjM1ASeQwSHEeAWPgskBQL
- Cc: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>, Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>, Bertrand Marquis <bertrand.marquis@xxxxxxx>, Michal Orzel <michal.orzel@xxxxxxx>, Volodymyr Babchuk <Volodymyr_Babchuk@xxxxxxxx>, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx>, Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>, Tamas K Lengyel <tamas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Alexandru Isaila <aisaila@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Petre Pircalabu <ppircalabu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Delivery-date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 07:30:47 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
On 09.06.2024 01:06, Petr Beneš wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 6, 2024 at 9:24 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> @@ -122,7 +131,12 @@ int p2m_init_altp2m(struct domain *d)
>>> struct p2m_domain *hostp2m = p2m_get_hostp2m(d);
>>>
>>> mm_lock_init(&d->arch.altp2m_list_lock);
>>> - for ( i = 0; i < MAX_ALTP2M; i++ )
>>> + d->arch.altp2m_p2m = xzalloc_array(struct p2m_domain *, d->nr_altp2m);
>>> +
>>> + if ( !d->arch.altp2m_p2m )
>>> + return -ENOMEM;
>>
>> This isn't really needed, is it? Both ...
>>
>>> + for ( i = 0; i < d->nr_altp2m; i++ )
>>
>> ... this and ...
>>
>>> {
>>> d->arch.altp2m_p2m[i] = p2m = p2m_init_one(d);
>>> if ( p2m == NULL )
>>> @@ -143,7 +157,10 @@ void p2m_teardown_altp2m(struct domain *d)
>>> unsigned int i;
>>> struct p2m_domain *p2m;
>>>
>>> - for ( i = 0; i < MAX_ALTP2M; i++ )
>>> + if ( !d->arch.altp2m_p2m )
>>> + return;
I'm sorry, the question was meant to be on this if() instead.
>>> + for ( i = 0; i < d->nr_altp2m; i++ )
>>> {
>>> if ( !d->arch.altp2m_p2m[i] )
>>> continue;
>>> @@ -151,6 +168,8 @@ void p2m_teardown_altp2m(struct domain *d)
>>> d->arch.altp2m_p2m[i] = NULL;
>>> p2m_free_one(p2m);
>>> }
>>> +
>>> + XFREE(d->arch.altp2m_p2m);
>>> }
>>
>> ... this ought to be fine without?
>
> Could you, please, elaborate? I honestly don't know what you mean here
> (by "this isn't needed").
I hope the above correction is enough?
Jan
|
