[Xen-ia64-devel]Found the lost memory.

["Xu, Anthony" <anthony.xu@xxxxxxxxx>]

>From: Alex Williamson 
>Sent: 2006年2月25日 5:09
>> available).  Should the xenheap size be reduced, or are we fragmenting
>> memory somewhere with this?  Thanks,

diff -r 1e97b6deefb3 xen/arch/ia64/xen/xensetup.c
--- a/xen/arch/ia64/xen/xensetup.c  Fri Feb 24 07:04:33 2006
+++ b/xen/arch/ia64/xen/xensetup.c  Tue Feb 28 10:05:05 2006
@@ -364,11 +364,11 @@

     /* The stash space for the initial kernel image can now be freed up. */
     init_domheap_pages(ia64_boot_param->domain_start,
-                       ia64_boot_param->domain_size);
+           ia64_boot_param->domain_start+ia64_boot_param->domain_size);
     /* throw away initrd area passed from elilo */
     if (ia64_boot_param->initrd_size) {
         init_domheap_pages(ia64_boot_param->initrd_start,
-                          ia64_boot_param->initrd_size);
+           ia64_boot_param->initrd_start+ia64_boot_param->initrd_size);
     }

AS above code segment show, memory allocated for dom0 image and dom0 initrd are
not reclaimed successfully, this memory size is about 20MB.

Unfortunately memory space for dom0 image and initrd is at very high address, 
which is conflict with memory space reversed for dom0 to avoid 
CONFIG_VIRTUAL_MEM_MAP isse, see below code segment:
     /* this is a bad hack.  see dom_fw.c creation of EFI map for dom0 */
    max_page = (GRANULEROUNDDOWN(max_page << PAGE_SHIFT)
   - IA64_GRANULE_SIZE) >> PAGE_SHIFT;

Alex/Dan:
I have no idea about how to handle this, what's your thought about this issue?


Thanks,
-Anthony 

_______________________________________________
Xen-ia64-devel mailing list
Xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ia64-devel