[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 2/9] mm: Place unscrubbed pages at the end of pagelist
Hi Jan,
On 15/08/17 15:51, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 15.08.17 at 16:41, <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 08/15/2017 04:18 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 14.08.17 at 16:29, <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 08/14/2017 06:37 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 08.08.17 at 23:45, <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
--- a/xen/include/asm-x86/mm.h
+++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/mm.h
@@ -88,7 +88,15 @@ struct page_info
/* Page is on a free list: ((count_info & PGC_count_mask) == 0). */
struct {
/* Do TLBs need flushing for safety before next page use? */
- bool_t need_tlbflush;
+ bool need_tlbflush:1;
+
+ /*
+ * Index of the first *possibly* unscrubbed page in the buddy.
+ * One more bit than maximum possible order to accommodate
+ * INVALID_DIRTY_IDX.
+ */
+#define INVALID_DIRTY_IDX ((1UL << (MAX_ORDER + 1)) - 1)
+ unsigned long first_dirty:MAX_ORDER + 1;
} free;
I think generated code will be better with the two fields swapped:
That way reading first_dirty won't involve a shift, and accessing a
single bit doesn't require shifts at all on many architectures.
Ok, I will then keep need_tlbflush as the last field so the final struct
(as defined in patch 7) will look like
struct {
unsigned long first_dirty:MAX_ORDER + 1;
unsigned long scrub_state:2;
bool need_tlbflush:1;
};
Hmm, actually - why do you need bitfields on the x86 side at all?
They're needed for 32-bit architectures only, 64-bit ones ought
to be fine with
struct {
unsigned int first_dirty;
bool need_tlbflush;
uint8_t scrub_state;
};
IIRC it was exactly because of ARM32 and at some point you suggested to
switch both x86 and ARM to bitfields.
I don't recall for sure whether I had asked for the change to be done
uniformly; it was certainly ARM32 that triggered me notice the
structure size change in your original version.
(plus a suitable BUILD_BUG_ON() to make sure first_dirty has
at least MAX_ORDER + 1 bits). The ARM maintainers will know
whether they would want to also differentiate ARM32 and
ARM64 here.
Isn't using bitfields the only possibility for 32-bit? We can't fit
first_dirty into 2 bytes.
Yes, hence the question whether to stay with bitfields uniformly
or make ARM64 follow x86, but ARM32 keep using bitfields.
I would prefer to avoid differentiation between Arm32 and Arm64.
Cheers,
--
Julien Grall
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
