From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Keir Fraser Subject: Re: Re: non-contiguous allocations Date: Fri, 06 May 2011 19:46:54 +0100 Message-ID: References: <20110506181234.GA24767@aepfle.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20110506181234.GA24767@aepfle.de> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Olaf Hering , "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 06/05/2011 19:12, "Olaf Hering" wrote: > On Mon, Apr 18, Olaf Hering wrote: > >> On Fri, Apr 01, George Dunlap wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 19:04 +0100, Olaf Hering wrote: >>>> Using the u16 means each cpu could in theory use up to 256MB as trace >>>> buffer. However such a large allocation will currently fail on x86 due >>>> to the MAX_ORDER limit. >>> >>> FWIW, I don't believe that there's any reason the allocations have to be >>> contiguous any more. I kept them contiguous to minimize the changes to >>> the moving parts near a release. But the new system has been pretty >>> well tested now, so I think looking at non-contiguous allocations may be >>> worthwhile. > > Is there a way to allocate more than 128mb with repeated calls to > alloc_xenheap_page()? Yes it should just work. Are you sure you actually have more than 128MB available (not all allocated to dom0 for example)? > From which pool should the per-cpu tracebuffers > get allocated? alloc_domheap_page() wants a domain, so I think thats > the wrong interface. Yes, sticking with alloc_xenheap_pages() is good. -- Keir > Olaf > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel