From: Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>
To: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH QEMU] transparent hugepage support
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 16:10:12 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201003121610.12694.paul@codesourcery.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100312145228.GR5677@random.random>
> > allocates it on a 2M boundary. I suspect you actually want (base % 2M) ==
> > 1M. Aligning on a 1M boundary will only DTRT half the time.
>
> The 1m-end is an hypothetical worry that come to mind as I was
> discussing the issue with you. Basically my point is that if the pc.c
> code will change and it'll pretend to qemu_ram_alloc the 0-640k and
> 1M-4G range with two separate calls (this is _not_ what qemu does
> right now), the alignment in qemu_ram_alloc that works right now,
> would then stop working.
>
> This is why I thought maybe it's more correct (and less
> virtual-ram-wasteful) to move the alignment in the caller even if the
> patch will grow in size and it'll be pc.c specific (which it wouldn't
> need to if other archs will support transparent hugepage).
>
> I think with what you're saying above you're basically agreeing with
> me I should move the alignment in the caller. Correct me if I
> misunderstood.
I don't think the target specific should know or care about this.
Anthony recently proposed a different API for allocation guest RAM that would
potentially make some of this information available to common code. However
that has significant issues once you try and use it for anything other than
the trivial PC machine. In particular I don't believe is is reasonable to
assume RAM is always mapped at a fixed guest address.
Paul
prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-03-12 16:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-03-11 15:14 [Qemu-devel] [PATCH QEMU] transparent hugepage support Andrea Arcangeli
2010-03-11 15:52 ` Avi Kivity
2010-03-11 16:05 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2010-03-13 8:28 ` Avi Kivity
2010-03-13 17:47 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2010-03-11 16:28 ` Paul Brook
2010-03-11 16:46 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2010-03-11 17:55 ` Paul Brook
2010-03-11 18:49 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2010-03-12 11:36 ` Paul Brook
2010-03-12 14:52 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2010-03-12 16:04 ` Paul Brook
2010-03-12 16:17 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2010-03-12 16:24 ` Paul Brook
2010-03-12 16:57 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2010-03-12 17:10 ` Paul Brook
2010-03-12 17:41 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2010-03-12 18:17 ` Paul Brook
2010-03-12 18:36 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2010-03-12 18:41 ` Paul Brook
2010-03-12 18:51 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2010-03-12 22:40 ` Jamie Lokier
2010-03-12 16:10 ` Paul Brook [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=201003121610.12694.paul@codesourcery.com \
--to=paul@codesourcery.com \
--cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
--cc=avi@redhat.com \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).