[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <30c5a1f0-4425-6c8b-5017-a78710c0bd72@suse.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 16:56:22 +0200
From: Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
To: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
Zhenzhong Duan <zhenzhong.duan@...cle.com>, mingo@...hat.com,
tglx@...utronix.de, hpa@...or.com
Cc: x86@...nel.org, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
srinivas.eeda@...cle.com, joe.jin@...cle.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Call xen_cleanhighmap() with 4MB aligned for page
tables mapping
On 27/09/17 16:48, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 09/27/2017 10:33 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> On 27/09/17 15:38, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>> On 09/27/2017 05:43 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>> On 27/09/17 11:41, Zhenzhong Duan wrote:
>>>>> When bootup a PVM guest with large memory(Ex.240GB), XEN provided initial
>>>>> mapping overlaps with kernel module virtual space. When mapping in this space
>>>>> is cleared by xen_cleanhighmap(), in certain case there could be an 2MB mapping
>>>>> left. This is due to XEN initialize 4MB aligned mapping but xen_cleanhighmap()
>>>>> finish at 2MB boundary.
>>> Does this mapping need to be 4MB-aligned?
>> I guess you are questioning the alignment of addr to be 4MB?
>> In this case you are right: the end of the mapping is 4MB aligned, as
>> correctly stated in the comment added.
>
> Yes, and my question is why does it need to be aligned on 4MB. Doesn't
> 2MB alignment suffice?
I believe this has historical reasons. :-)
For this patch the answer doesn't matter, as Xen does it this way and
the kernel has to cope with the situation.
This interface is specified in include/xen/interface/xen.h in the
comment section just before struct start_info:
/*
* Start-of-day memory layout
*
* 1. The domain is started within contiguous virtual-memory region.
* 2. The contiguous region begins and ends on an aligned 4MB boundary.
...
Juergen
Powered by blists - more mailing lists