[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <45D27534.1070608@vmware.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 18:34:28 -0800
From: Dan Hecht <dhecht@...are.com>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
CC: Andi Kleen <ak@....de>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
virtualization@...ts.osdl.org, xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com,
Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 05/21] Xen-paravirt: paravirt_ops: allocate a fixmap slot
On 02/13/2007 05:36 PM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Dan Hecht wrote:
>> Why doesn't Xen allocate the shared_info page from the pseudo-physical
>> space? Doesn't it already have to steal pages from the
>> pseudo-physical space for e.g. initial page tables, console, etc? Why
>> not do the same for shared_info, and then you don't need a reserve the
>> fixmap slot.
>
> Unlike the pagetable pages or the console page, the shared info page
> doesn't have a pseudo-physical address, so in order to map it we need to
> directly construct a pte containing the mfn for that page.
Right. But that is only because Xen decides to allocate the page from
the (machine) physical space, rather than from the pseudo-physical
space. My question is: why doesn't Xen allocate shared_info from the
pseudo-physical space? If it had, then this page wouldn't need to be
treated specially. I'm not sure, but I seem to remember on 64-bit
Xen/XenLinux allocated shared_info from pseudo-physical space already...
Inserting
> this mapping into the fixmap space seems like the easiest way to do
> this. It's not like a fixmap slot costs anything.
>
>
I don't really have an objection to stealing a fixmap slot, just seems
cleaner if you didn't have to special case the shared_info.
Dan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists