From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Keir Fraser Subject: Re: x86 swiotlb questions Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 14:03:50 +0000 Message-ID: References: <4582B6CF.76E4.0078.0@novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4582B6CF.76E4.0078.0@novell.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Jan Beulich , xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, Keir Fraser List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 15/12/06 13:53, "Jan Beulich" wrote: > I already have patches ready to do this (the DMA thing really is a nice side > effect, I mostly wanted it for 32on64, so that I can restrict domain > allocations for 32-bit domains). Are you saying I should throw away the > DMA specialization then altogether (I already have no special DMA heap > anymore)? The leftovers from it are so that one can reserve some portion > of low memory to be returned only when the width restriction is low enough > (i.e. to retain dma_emergency_pool functionality), which certainly isn't > really appropriate anymore now (it should rather be a percentage or > something like that, so that the lower you get the more of the memory > remains reserved for specialized allocations). I think dma_emergency_pool as is can go. Possibly it should be replaced by allocator-management tools in dom0 to allow setting of limits on a per-bitwidth basis. Is this one of the patches you already sent in your 32-on-64 batch, or an additional one? -- Keir