 Home |
Products |
Support |
Community |
News |
xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86-64: don't use xmalloc_array() for allocation
| To: | Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86-64: don't use xmalloc_array() for allocation of the (per-CPU) IDTs |
| From: | Keir Fraser <keir@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 13 Oct 2011 16:23:32 +0100 |
| Cc: | "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Delivery-date: | Thu, 13 Oct 2011 08:24:25 -0700 |
| Dkim-signature: | v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:user-agent:date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id:thread-topic :thread-index:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=wbVr7D8v7Cam+8onZeUsrrHF8mdsOHrWEnVx4FYKlL8=; b=RRc8t6fBCCFYIrR0XG5jq4PFn/DdEQ7NxP9sO//88AKfD8wIZJ9Trv/4VxkzFzq0zQ FkfylGpHT6Y4zNC/Df2I6DfWJ3sG1u3ShkWch3N8xaGMNO71U8YpYGxmjsA3Waptubur hZBVm8PoL+ZWjjj9xwe+LI+zXyFOg7Zw5330c= |
| Envelope-to: | www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <4E971D06020000780005B352@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| 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> |
| Sender: | xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| Thread-index: | AcyJvBEPgsgYIqgogkmMRikE5V3jnA== |
| Thread-topic: | [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86-64: don't use xmalloc_array() for allocation of the (per-CPU) IDTs |
| User-agent: | Microsoft-Entourage/12.30.0.110427 |
On 13/10/2011 16:16, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Looks good to me - I was actually considering to convert the x86-64 >>> code back to alloc_xenheap_pages() too (for we'll need to do that >>> eventually anyway when we want to support more than 5Tb of memory) >>> when I put together that earlier patch, but then refrained from doing so >>> to keep the patch size down. >> >> You mean there's a 5TB limit for alloc_domheap_pages() allocations?? > > No, I mean that currently we can't use more than 5Tb on any system. > Due to address space limitations, going beyond that will require to > introduce split domain and Xen heaps (including map_domain_page() etc) > and hence the consistent use of alloc_xenheap_pages() vs. > alloc_domheap_pages() (which currently isn't the case - you fixed just > one group of them). Remember talking about that on the summit? Ah yes, I do remember now! K. _______________________________________________ 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] [PATCH] x86-64: don't use xmalloc_array() for allocation of the (per-CPU) IDTs, Jan Beulich |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH RFC V4 06/10] jump_label: add arch_jump_label_transform_static() to optimise non-live code updates, Peter Zijlstra |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86-64: don't use xmalloc_array() for allocation of the (per-CPU) IDTs, Jan Beulich |
| Next by Thread: | [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xmalloc: return unused full pages on multi-page allocations, Jan Beulich |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
