Re: [Xen-devel] Re: non-contiguous allocations

[Keir Fraser <keir@xxxxxxx>]

On 09/05/2011 09:30, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> Yes, sticking with alloc_xenheap_pages() is good.
> 
> It really depends on whether you expect to get memory that has
> (even on 32-bit) a virtual mapping, or you want to map it at an
> arbitrary virtual address after wards. alloc_xenheap_pages() gives
> you mapped memory (and the amount you can get is rather limited
> on 32-bit), while alloc_domheap_pages(NULL, ...) gives you
> memory that has a mapping only on 64-bit (and, once we'll find it
> necessary to support machines with more than 5Tb, even that
> may not hold anymore) but it equally not associated with any
> domain.

We have a mechanism for sharing xenheap pages with a guest, which xentrace
is already using. Doing the same with anonymous domheap pages would be extra
hassle. The limitation of xenheap on x86_32 is uninteresting to me,
especially when we're talking about a niche developer feature like xentrace.

 -- Keir



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel