Re: [PATCH V3 2/8] xen: Delay remapping memory of pv-domain

[Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>]

On 11/19/2014 08:43 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 06:14:06PM +0100, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> On 11/14/2014 05:47 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 05:53:19AM +0100, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>> On 11/13/2014 08:56 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>>>>>>>> +	mfn_save = virt_to_mfn(buf);
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> +	while (xen_remap_mfn != INVALID_P2M_ENTRY) {
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So the 'list' is constructed by going forward - that is from low-numbered
>>>>>>> PFNs to higher numbered ones. But the 'xen_remap_mfn' is going the
>>>>>>> other way - from the highest PFN to the lowest PFN.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Won't that mean we will restore the chunks of memory in the wrong
>>>>>>> order? That is we will still restore them in chunks size, but the
>>>>>>> chunks will be in descending order instead of ascending?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, the information where to put each chunk is contained in the chunk
>>>>>> data. I can add a comment explaining this.
>>>>>
>>>>> Right, the MFNs in a "chunks" are going to be restored in the right order.
>>>>>
>>>>> I was thinking that the "chunks" (so a set of MFNs) will be restored in
>>>>> the opposite order that they are written to.
>>>>>
>>>>> And oddly enough the "chunks" are done in 512-3 = 509 MFNs at once?
>>>>
>>>> More don't fit on a single page due to the other info needed. So: yes.
>>>
>>> But you could use two pages - one for the structure and the other
>>> for the list of MFNs. That would fix the problem of having only
>>> 509 MFNs being contingous per chunk when restoring.
>>
>> That's no problem (see below).
>>
>>> Anyhow the point I had that I am worried is that we do not restore the
>>> MFNs in the same order. We do it in "chunk" size which is OK (so the 509 MFNs
>>> at once)- but the order we traverse the restoration process is the opposite of
>>> the save process. Say we have 4MB of contingous MFNs, so two (err, three)
>>> chunks. The first one we iterate is from 0->509, the second is 510->1018, the
>>> last is 1019->1023. When we restore (remap) we start with the last 'chunk'
>>> so we end up restoring them: 1019->1023, 510->1018, 0->509 order.
>>
>> No. When building up the chunks we save in each chunk where to put it
>> on remap. So in your example 0-509 should be mapped at <dest>+0,
>> 510-1018 at <dest>+510, and 1019-1023 at <dest>+1019.
>>
>> When remapping we map 1019-1023 to <dest>+1019, 510-1018 at <dest>+510
>> and last 0-509 at <dest>+0. So we do the mapping in reverse order, but
>> to the correct pfns.
>
> Excellent! Could a condensed version of that explanation be put in the code ?

Sure.

Juergen