From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Keir Fraser Subject: Re: long latency of domain shutdown Date: Thu, 08 May 2008 11:52:54 +0100 Message-ID: References: <4822F468.76E4.0078.0@novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4822F468.76E4.0078.0@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 Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 8/5/08 11:39, "Jan Beulich" wrote: > No, here I mean having just RELMEM_xen and RELMEM_l{1,2,3,4}. > Then simply release Xen pages first, then l4...l1. > > For the suggested workaround to reduce latency of relinquish_memory() > preemption, I simply mean utilizing the code to deal with circular > references also for releasing simple ones (that code path doesn't seem > to care to force the type count to zero, but as I understand that's no > problem since these pages end up being freed anyway, and that's > where the whole type_info field gets re-initialized - or was this > happening when the page gets allocated the next time). You've lost me. Either you are confused or I have forgotten the details of how that shutdown code works. Either is quite possible I suspect. :-) Basically I don't see how this avoids the recursive, and potentially rather expensive, teardown. Nor am I convinced about how much potential time-saving there is to be had here. -- Keir