Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] delte PAGE_ORDER_1G in pod

["Zhang, Chunyu" <zhangcy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>On 26/04/16 11:49, Zhang, Chunyu wrote:
>>
>>> On 26/04/16 08:27, zhangcy wrote:
>>>> PoD does not have cache list for 1GB pages.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: zhangcy <zhangcy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> Thanks for the patch.  FYI we normally tag the area in the title in a
>>> structured way; I probably would have used something like the following:
>>>
>>> xen/pod: Remove code handling PAGE_ORDER_1G from p2m_pod_cache_add
>> got it, thanks.
>>>
>>> But with regards to the patch itself: The question isn't whether we have
>>> a cache list for 1G pages; the question is whether p2m_pod_cache_add()
>>> will ever be called with order == PAGE_ORDER_1G.
>>>
>>> Taking a quick glance around, it looks like in theory if a guest called
>>> decrease_reservation with order == PAGE_ORDER_1G, you could conceivably
>>> get to p2m_pod_cache_add() with order == PAGE_ORDER_1G.
>> i just think like this:
>>
>> p2m_pod_decrease_reservation
>>   - if ( steal_for_cache && p2m_is_ram(t) )
>>      - p2m_pod_cache_add(p2m, page, cur_order)
>> i think p2m_is_ram(t) , ram also from pod cache,
>
>No, that's memory from the guest's p2m table.  The p2m table can have 1G
right..
sorry , i did not write clearly.
i mean: ram come like this:
- pod cache is 4K or 2M
- ram get from pod cache
- set ram to p2m table.
so i think p2m table is 4K or 2M.

i not sure about this O(∩_∩)O~
>entries.
>
> -George
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel