From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Jan Beulich" Subject: RE: Memory fragmentation, order>0 allocation, and 4.0 dynamic RAM optimization features Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 16:18:53 +0000 Message-ID: <4B7D767D0200007800030229@vpn.id2.novell.com> References: <4B7D02B302000078000300BF@vpn.id2.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Dan Magenheimer Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, Tim Deegan , GeorgeDunlap , PatrickColp , Ian Pratt , Andrew Peace , Keir Fraser , Grzegorz Milos List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org >>> Dan Magenheimer 18.02.10 17:09 >>> >But ignoring my flimsy excuses, Jan, do you have some debug code >you are using to identify order>0 allocations? If so, could I >have a copy... and perhaps Keir would consider adding >it post-4.0 to make it easier to search-and-destroy. I actually noticed this only as a side effect from a much uglier debugging patch - observing apparent memory corruption with no apparent pattern during save/restore/migrate, I finally decided to try a brute force method and track all allocations. Since you are so eager to point out and fix all order > 0 allocations, I was quite surprised to see one while tmem itself initialized its state for Dom0. Hence I thought I'd point it out. = The patch as it stands is, I think, not really a general debugging aid - if = you think differently, I can of course still share it. Jan