From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Keir Fraser Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/15] Nested Virtualization: Overview Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 11:00:35 +0100 Message-ID: References: <201006041144.54352.Christoph.Egger@amd.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <201006041144.54352.Christoph.Egger@amd.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: Christoph Egger , "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" Cc: Tim Deegan List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 04/06/2010 10:44, "Christoph Egger" wrote: > @Tim: On last review you asked about the use of MAX_NESTEDP2M. > Actually, this is a hack. What I really need in Xen is a generic pool > implementation like this > http://netbsd.gw.com/cgi-bin/man-cgi?pool+9+NetBSD-current > and this > http://netbsd.gw.com/cgi-bin/man-cgi?pool_cache+9+NetBSD-current > In NetBSD, pool_cache(9) is implemented on top of pool(9). > > IMO, xmalloc/xfree, machine check and cpupool code should also > use pool_cache(9) in Xen instead of having their own versions. > Can we take the pool/pool_cache code from NetBSD ? I'd hope we can really manage without such a mechanism. At least, we'd need a darn good reason for it, and to have rejected simpler alternative solutions. I know some OSes have such a concept so that paging code doesn't deadlock. I can't immediately guess why we'd need it in Xen. And does pool_cache have much relationship to cpupool, except both have "pool" in their name? :-) -- Keir