[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d0b851a5-6546-3958-7d4c-9436f574d62e@suse.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2021 06:16:04 +0100
From: Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
To: Oleksandr <olekstysh@...il.com>,
Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>
Cc: xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Oleksandr Tyshchenko <oleksandr_tyshchenko@...m.com>,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
Julien Grall <julien@....org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 3/4] xen/unpopulated-alloc: Add mechanism to use Xen
resource
On 23.11.21 17:46, Oleksandr wrote:
>
> On 20.11.21 04:19, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>
> Hi Stefano, Juergen, all
>
>
>> Juergen please see the bottom of the email
>>
>> On Fri, 19 Nov 2021, Oleksandr wrote:
>>> On 19.11.21 02:59, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 9 Nov 2021, Oleksandr wrote:
>>>>> On 28.10.21 19:37, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Stefano
>>>>>
>>>>> I am sorry for the late response.
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 26 Oct 2021, Oleksandr Tyshchenko wrote:
>>>>>>> From: Oleksandr Tyshchenko <oleksandr_tyshchenko@...m.com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The main reason of this change is that unpopulated-alloc
>>>>>>> code cannot be used in its current form on Arm, but there
>>>>>>> is a desire to reuse it to avoid wasting real RAM pages
>>>>>>> for the grant/foreign mappings.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The problem is that system "iomem_resource" is used for
>>>>>>> the address space allocation, but the really unallocated
>>>>>>> space can't be figured out precisely by the domain on Arm
>>>>>>> without hypervisor involvement. For example, not all device
>>>>>>> I/O regions are known by the time domain starts creating
>>>>>>> grant/foreign mappings. And following the advise from
>>>>>>> "iomem_resource" we might end up reusing these regions by
>>>>>>> a mistake. So, the hypervisor which maintains the P2M for
>>>>>>> the domain is in the best position to provide unused regions
>>>>>>> of guest physical address space which could be safely used
>>>>>>> to create grant/foreign mappings.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Introduce new helper arch_xen_unpopulated_init() which purpose
>>>>>>> is to create specific Xen resource based on the memory regions
>>>>>>> provided by the hypervisor to be used as unused space for Xen
>>>>>>> scratch pages.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If arch doesn't implement arch_xen_unpopulated_init() to
>>>>>>> initialize Xen resource the default "iomem_resource" will be used.
>>>>>>> So the behavior on x86 won't be changed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also fall back to allocate xenballooned pages (steal real RAM
>>>>>>> pages) if we do not have any suitable resource to work with and
>>>>>>> as the result we won't be able to provide unpopulated pages.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Oleksandr Tyshchenko <oleksandr_tyshchenko@...m.com>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> Changes RFC -> V2:
>>>>>>> - new patch, instead of
>>>>>>> "[RFC PATCH 2/2] xen/unpopulated-alloc: Query hypervisor to
>>>>>>> provide
>>>>>>> unallocated space"
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> drivers/xen/unpopulated-alloc.c | 89
>>>>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>>>>>>> include/xen/xen.h | 2 +
>>>>>>> 2 files changed, 88 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/xen/unpopulated-alloc.c
>>>>>>> b/drivers/xen/unpopulated-alloc.c
>>>>>>> index a03dc5b..1f1d8d8 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/xen/unpopulated-alloc.c
>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/xen/unpopulated-alloc.c
>>>>>>> @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@
>>>>>>> #include <asm/page.h>
>>>>>>> +#include <xen/balloon.h>
>>>>>>> #include <xen/page.h>
>>>>>>> #include <xen/xen.h>
>>>>>>> @@ -15,13 +16,29 @@ static DEFINE_MUTEX(list_lock);
>>>>>>> static struct page *page_list;
>>>>>>> static unsigned int list_count;
>>>>>>> +static struct resource *target_resource;
>>>>>>> +static struct resource xen_resource = {
>>>>>>> + .name = "Xen unused space",
>>>>>>> +};
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +/*
>>>>>>> + * If arch is not happy with system "iomem_resource" being used for
>>>>>>> + * the region allocation it can provide it's own view by
>>>>>>> initializing
>>>>>>> + * "xen_resource" with unused regions of guest physical address
>>>>>>> space
>>>>>>> + * provided by the hypervisor.
>>>>>>> + */
>>>>>>> +int __weak arch_xen_unpopulated_init(struct resource *res)
>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>> + return -ENOSYS;
>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> static int fill_list(unsigned int nr_pages)
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>> struct dev_pagemap *pgmap;
>>>>>>> - struct resource *res;
>>>>>>> + struct resource *res, *tmp_res = NULL;
>>>>>>> void *vaddr;
>>>>>>> unsigned int i, alloc_pages = round_up(nr_pages,
>>>>>>> PAGES_PER_SECTION);
>>>>>>> - int ret = -ENOMEM;
>>>>>>> + int ret;
>>>>>>> res = kzalloc(sizeof(*res), GFP_KERNEL);
>>>>>>> if (!res)
>>>>>>> @@ -30,7 +47,7 @@ static int fill_list(unsigned int nr_pages)
>>>>>>> res->name = "Xen scratch";
>>>>>>> res->flags = IORESOURCE_MEM | IORESOURCE_BUSY;
>>>>>>> - ret = allocate_resource(&iomem_resource, res,
>>>>>>> + ret = allocate_resource(target_resource, res,
>>>>>>> alloc_pages * PAGE_SIZE, 0, -1,
>>>>>>> PAGES_PER_SECTION * PAGE_SIZE, NULL,
>>>>>>> NULL);
>>>>>>> if (ret < 0) {
>>>>>>> @@ -38,6 +55,31 @@ static int fill_list(unsigned int nr_pages)
>>>>>>> goto err_resource;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>> + /*
>>>>>>> + * Reserve the region previously allocated from Xen resource
>>>>>>> to avoid
>>>>>>> + * re-using it by someone else.
>>>>>>> + */
>>>>>>> + if (target_resource != &iomem_resource) {
>>>>>>> + tmp_res = kzalloc(sizeof(*tmp_res), GFP_KERNEL);
>>>>>>> + if (!res) {
>>>>>>> + ret = -ENOMEM;
>>>>>>> + goto err_insert;
>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + tmp_res->name = res->name;
>>>>>>> + tmp_res->start = res->start;
>>>>>>> + tmp_res->end = res->end;
>>>>>>> + tmp_res->flags = res->flags;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + ret = insert_resource(&iomem_resource, tmp_res);
>>>>>>> + if (ret < 0) {
>>>>>>> + pr_err("Cannot insert IOMEM resource [%llx -
>>>>>>> %llx]\n",
>>>>>>> + tmp_res->start, tmp_res->end);
>>>>>>> + kfree(tmp_res);
>>>>>>> + goto err_insert;
>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>> I am a bit confused.. why do we need to do this? Who could be
>>>>>> erroneously re-using the region? Are you saying that the next time
>>>>>> allocate_resource is called it could find the same region again? It
>>>>>> doesn't seem possible?
>>>>> No, as I understand the allocate_resource() being called for the
>>>>> same root
>>>>> resource won't provide the same region... We only need to do this
>>>>> (insert
>>>>> the
>>>>> region into "iomem_resource") if we allocated it from our *internal*
>>>>> "xen_resource", as *global* "iomem_resource" (which is used
>>>>> everywhere) is
>>>>> not
>>>>> aware of that region has been already allocated. So inserting a region
>>>>> here we
>>>>> reserving it, otherwise it could be reused elsewhere.
>>>> But elsewhere where?
>>> I think, theoretically everywhere where
>>> allocate_resource(&iomem_resource,
>>> ...) is called.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Let's say that allocate_resource allocates a range from xen_resource.
>>>> From reading the code, it doesn't look like iomem_resource would have
>>>> that range because the extended regions described under /hypervisor are
>>>> not added automatically to iomem_resource.
>>>>
>>>> So what if we don't call insert_resource? Nothing could allocate the
>>>> same range because iomem_resource doesn't have it at all and
>>>> xen_resource is not used anywhere if not here.
>>>>
>>>> What am I missing?
>>>
>>> Below my understanding which, of course, might be wrong.
>>>
>>> If we don't claim resource by calling insert_resource (or even
>>> request_resource) here then the same range could be allocated
>>> everywhere where
>>> allocate_resource(&iomem_resource, ...) is called.
>>> I don't see what prevents the same range from being allocated. Why
>>> actually
>>> allocate_resource(&iomem_resource, ...) can't provide the same range
>>> if it is
>>> free (not-reserved-yet) from it's PoV? The comment above
>>> allocate_resource()
>>> says "allocate empty slot in the resource tree given range &
>>> alignment". So
>>> this "empty slot" could be exactly the same range.
>>>
>>> I experimented with that a bit trying to call
>>> allocate_resource(&iomem_resource, ...) several times in another
>>> place to see
>>> what ranges it returns in both cases (w/ and w/o calling insert_resource
>>> here). So an experiment confirmed (of course, if I made it correctly)
>>> that the
>>> same range could be allocated if we didn't call insert_resource()
>>> here. And as
>>> I understand there is nothing strange here, as iomem_resource covers all
>>> address space initially (0, -1) and everything *not*
>>> inserted/requested (in
>>> other words, reserved) yet is considered as free and could be
>>> provided if fits
>>> constraints. Or I really missed something?
>> Thanks for the explanation! It was me that didn't know that
>> iomem_resource covers all the address space initially. I thought it was
>> populated only with actual iomem ranges. Now it makes sense, thanks!
>>
>>
>>> It feels to me that it would be better to call request_resource()
>>> instead of
>>> insert_resource(). It seems, that if no conflict happens both
>>> functions will
>>> behave in same way, but in case of conflict if the conflicting resource
>>> entirely fit the new resource the former will return an error. I
>>> think, this
>>> way we will be able to detect that a range we are trying to reserve
>>> is already
>>> present and bail out early.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Or maybe it is the other way around: core Linux code assumes everything
>>>> is described in iomem_resource so something under kernel/ or mm/ would
>>>> crash if we start using a page pointing to an address missing from
>>>> iomem_resource?
>>>>>>> pgmap = kzalloc(sizeof(*pgmap), GFP_KERNEL);
>>>>>>> if (!pgmap) {
>>>>>>> ret = -ENOMEM;
>>>>>>> @@ -95,12 +137,40 @@ static int fill_list(unsigned int nr_pages)
>>>>>>> err_memremap:
>>>>>>> kfree(pgmap);
>>>>>>> err_pgmap:
>>>>>>> + if (tmp_res) {
>>>>>>> + release_resource(tmp_res);
>>>>>>> + kfree(tmp_res);
>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>> +err_insert:
>>>>>>> release_resource(res);
>>>>>>> err_resource:
>>>>>>> kfree(res);
>>>>>>> return ret;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>> +static void unpopulated_init(void)
>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>> + static bool inited = false;
>>>>>> initialized = false
>>>>> ok.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> + int ret;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + if (inited)
>>>>>>> + return;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + /*
>>>>>>> + * Try to initialize Xen resource the first and fall back to
>>>>>>> default
>>>>>>> + * resource if arch doesn't offer one.
>>>>>>> + */
>>>>>>> + ret = arch_xen_unpopulated_init(&xen_resource);
>>>>>>> + if (!ret)
>>>>>>> + target_resource = &xen_resource;
>>>>>>> + else if (ret == -ENOSYS)
>>>>>>> + target_resource = &iomem_resource;
>>>>>>> + else
>>>>>>> + pr_err("Cannot initialize Xen resource\n");
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + inited = true;
>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>> Would it make sense to call unpopulated_init from an init function,
>>>>>> rather than every time xen_alloc_unpopulated_pages is called?
>>>>> Good point, thank you. Will do. To be honest, I also don't like the
>>>>> current
>>>>> approach much.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> /**
>>>>>>> * xen_alloc_unpopulated_pages - alloc unpopulated pages
>>>>>>> * @nr_pages: Number of pages
>>>>>>> @@ -112,6 +182,16 @@ int xen_alloc_unpopulated_pages(unsigned int
>>>>>>> nr_pages, struct page **pages)
>>>>>>> unsigned int i;
>>>>>>> int ret = 0;
>>>>>>> + unpopulated_init();
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + /*
>>>>>>> + * Fall back to default behavior if we do not have any
>>>>>>> suitable
>>>>>>> resource
>>>>>>> + * to allocate required region from and as the result we won't
>>>>>>> be able
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> + * construct pages.
>>>>>>> + */
>>>>>>> + if (!target_resource)
>>>>>>> + return alloc_xenballooned_pages(nr_pages, pages);
>>>>>> The commit message says that the behavior on x86 doesn't change
>>>>>> but this
>>>>>> seems to be a change that could impact x86?
>>>>> I don't think, however I didn't tested on x86 and might be wrong, but
>>>>> according to the current patch, on x86 the "target_resource" is always
>>>>> valid
>>>>> and points to the "iomem_resource" as arch_xen_unpopulated_init()
>>>>> is not
>>>>> implemented. So there won't be any fallback to use
>>>>> alloc_(free)_xenballooned_pages() here and fill_list() will behave as
>>>>> usual.
>>>> If target_resource is always valid, then we don't need this special
>>>> check. In fact, the condition should never be true.
>>>
>>> The target_resource is always valid and points to the
>>> "iomem_resource" on x86
>>> (this is equivalent to the behavior before this patch).
>>> On Arm target_resource might be NULL if arch_xen_unpopulated_init()
>>> failed,
>>> for example, if no extended regions reported by the hypervisor.
>>> We cannot use "iomem_resource" on Arm, only a resource constructed from
>>> extended regions. This is why I added that check (and fallback to
>>> xenballooned
>>> pages).
>>> What I was thinking is that in case of using old Xen (although we
>>> would need
>>> to balloon out RAM pages) we still would be able to keep working, so
>>> no need
>>> to disable CONFIG_XEN_UNPOPULATED_ALLOC on such setups.
>>>>> You raised a really good question, on Arm we need a fallback to
>>>>> balloon
>>>>> out
>>>>> RAM pages again if hypervisor doesn't provide extended regions (we
>>>>> run on
>>>>> old
>>>>> version, no unused regions with reasonable size, etc), so I decided
>>>>> to put
>>>>> a
>>>>> fallback code here, an indicator of the failure is invalid
>>>>> "target_resource".
>>>> I think it is unnecessary as we already assume today that
>>>> &iomem_resource is always available.
>>>>> I noticed the patch which is about to be upstreamed that removes
>>>>> alloc_(free)xenballooned_pages API [1]. Right now I have no idea
>>>>> how/where
>>>>> this fallback could be implemented as this is under build option
>>>>> control
>>>>> (CONFIG_XEN_UNPOPULATED_ALLOC). So the API with the same name is
>>>>> either
>>>>> used
>>>>> for unpopulated pages (if set) or ballooned pages (if not set). I
>>>>> would
>>>>> appreciate suggestions regarding that. I am wondering would it be
>>>>> possible
>>>>> and
>>>>> correctly to have both mechanisms (unpopulated and ballooned)
>>>>> enabled by
>>>>> default and some init code to decide which one to use at runtime or
>>>>> some
>>>>> sort?
>>>> I would keep it simple and remove the fallback from this patch. So:
>>>>
>>>> - if not CONFIG_XEN_UNPOPULATED_ALLOC, then balloon
>>>> - if CONFIG_XEN_UNPOPULATED_ALLOC, then
>>>> - xen_resource if present
>>>> - otherwise iomem_resource
>>> Unfortunately, we cannot use iomem_resource on Arm safely, either
>>> xen_resource
>>> or fail (if no fallback exists).
>>>
>>>
>>>> The xen_resource/iomem_resource config can be done at init time using
>>>> target_resource. At runtime, target_resource is always != NULL so we
>>>> just go ahead and use it.
>>>
>>> Thank you for the suggestion. OK, let's keep it simple and drop fallback
>>> attempts for now. With one remark:
>>> We will make CONFIG_XEN_UNPOPULATED_ALLOC disabled by default on Arm
>>> in next
>>> patch. So by default everything will behave as usual on Arm (balloon
>>> out RAM
>>> pages),
>>> if user knows for sure that Xen reports extended regions, he/she can
>>> enable
>>> the config. This way we won't break anything. What do you think?
>> Actually after reading your replies and explanation I changed opinion: I
>> think we do need the fallback because Linux cannot really assume that
>> it is running on "new Xen" so it definitely needs to keep working if
>> CONFIG_XEN_UNPOPULATED_ALLOC is enabled and the extended regions are not
>> advertised.
>>
>> I think we'll have to roll back some of the changes introduced by
>> 121f2faca2c0a. That's because even if CONFIG_XEN_UNPOPULATED_ALLOC is
>> enabled we cannot know if we can use unpopulated-alloc or whether we
>> have to use alloc_xenballooned_pages until we parse the /hypervisor node
>> in device tree at runtime.
>
> Exactly!
>
>
>>
>> In short, we cannot switch between unpopulated-alloc and
>> alloc_xenballooned_pages at build time, we have to do it at runtime
>> (boot time).
>
> +1
>
>
> I created a patch to partially revert 121f2faca2c0a "xen/balloon: rename
> alloc/free_xenballooned_pages".
>
> If there is no objections I will add it to V3 (which is almost ready,
> except the fallback bits). Could you please tell me what do you think?
>
>
> From dc79bcd425358596d95e715a8bd8b81deaaeb703 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Oleksandr Tyshchenko <oleksandr_tyshchenko@...m.com>
> Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2021 18:14:41 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH] xen/balloon: Bring alloc(free)_xenballooned_pages helpers
> back
>
> This patch rolls back some of the changes introduced by commit
> 121f2faca2c0a "xen/balloon: rename alloc/free_xenballooned_pages"
> in order to make possible to still allocate xenballooned pages
> if CONFIG_XEN_UNPOPULATED_ALLOC is enabled.
>
> On Arm the unpopulated pages will be allocated on top of extended
> regions provided by Xen via device-tree (the subsequent patches
> will add required bits to support unpopulated-alloc feature on Arm).
> The problem is that extended regions feature has been introduced
> into Xen quite recently (during 4.16 release cycle). So this
> effectively means that Linux must only use unpopulated-alloc on Arm
> if it is running on "new Xen" which advertises these regions.
> But, it will only be known after parsing the "hypervisor" node
> at boot time, so before doing that we cannot assume anything.
>
> In order to keep working if CONFIG_XEN_UNPOPULATED_ALLOC is enabled
> and the extended regions are not advertised (Linux is running on
> "old Xen", etc) we need the fallback to alloc_xenballooned_pages().
>
> This way we wouldn't reduce the amount of memory usable (wasting
> RAM pages) for any of the external mappings anymore (and eliminate
> XSA-300) with "new Xen", but would be still functional ballooning
> out RAM pages with "old Xen".
>
> Also rename alloc(free)_xenballooned_pages to
> xen_alloc(free)_ballooned_pages.
>
> Signed-off-by: Oleksandr Tyshchenko <oleksandr_tyshchenko@...m.com>
> ---
> drivers/xen/balloon.c | 20 +++++++++-----------
> include/xen/balloon.h | 3 +++
> include/xen/xen.h | 6 ++++++
> 3 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/xen/balloon.c b/drivers/xen/balloon.c
> index ba2ea11..a2c4fc49 100644
> --- a/drivers/xen/balloon.c
> +++ b/drivers/xen/balloon.c
> @@ -581,7 +581,6 @@ void balloon_set_new_target(unsigned long target)
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(balloon_set_new_target);
>
> -#ifndef CONFIG_XEN_UNPOPULATED_ALLOC
> static int add_ballooned_pages(unsigned int nr_pages)
> {
> enum bp_state st;
> @@ -610,12 +609,12 @@ static int add_ballooned_pages(unsigned int nr_pages)
> }
>
> /**
> - * xen_alloc_unpopulated_pages - get pages that have been ballooned out
> + * xen_alloc_ballooned_pages - get pages that have been ballooned out
> * @nr_pages: Number of pages to get
> * @pages: pages returned
> * @return 0 on success, error otherwise
> */
> -int xen_alloc_unpopulated_pages(unsigned int nr_pages, struct page
> **pages)
> +int xen_alloc_ballooned_pages(unsigned int nr_pages, struct page **pages)
> {
> unsigned int pgno = 0;
> struct page *page;
> @@ -652,23 +651,23 @@ int xen_alloc_unpopulated_pages(unsigned int
> nr_pages, struct page **pages)
> return 0;
> out_undo:
> mutex_unlock(&balloon_mutex);
> - xen_free_unpopulated_pages(pgno, pages);
> + xen_free_ballooned_pages(pgno, pages);
> /*
> - * NB: free_xenballooned_pages will only subtract pgno pages, but
> since
> + * NB: xen_free_ballooned_pages will only subtract pgno pages, but
> since
> * target_unpopulated is incremented with nr_pages at the start we
> need
> * to remove the remaining ones also, or accounting will be screwed.
> */
> balloon_stats.target_unpopulated -= nr_pages - pgno;
> return ret;
> }
> -EXPORT_SYMBOL(xen_alloc_unpopulated_pages);
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(xen_alloc_ballooned_pages);
>
> /**
> - * xen_free_unpopulated_pages - return pages retrieved with
> get_ballooned_pages
> + * xen_free_ballooned_pages - return pages retrieved with
> get_ballooned_pages
> * @nr_pages: Number of pages
> * @pages: pages to return
> */
> -void xen_free_unpopulated_pages(unsigned int nr_pages, struct page
> **pages)
> +void xen_free_ballooned_pages(unsigned int nr_pages, struct page **pages)
> {
> unsigned int i;
>
> @@ -687,9 +686,9 @@ void xen_free_unpopulated_pages(unsigned int
> nr_pages, struct page **pages)
>
> mutex_unlock(&balloon_mutex);
> }
> -EXPORT_SYMBOL(xen_free_unpopulated_pages);
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(xen_free_ballooned_pages);
>
> -#if defined(CONFIG_XEN_PV)
> +#if defined(CONFIG_XEN_PV) && !defined(CONFIG_XEN_UNPOPULATED_ALLOC)
> static void __init balloon_add_region(unsigned long start_pfn,
> unsigned long pages)
> {
> @@ -712,7 +711,6 @@ static void __init balloon_add_region(unsigned long
> start_pfn,
> balloon_stats.total_pages += extra_pfn_end - start_pfn;
> }
> #endif
> -#endif
>
> static int __init balloon_init(void)
> {
> diff --git a/include/xen/balloon.h b/include/xen/balloon.h
> index e93d4f0..f78a6cc 100644
> --- a/include/xen/balloon.h
> +++ b/include/xen/balloon.h
> @@ -26,6 +26,9 @@ extern struct balloon_stats balloon_stats;
>
> void balloon_set_new_target(unsigned long target);
>
> +int xen_alloc_ballooned_pages(unsigned int nr_pages, struct page **pages);
> +void xen_free_ballooned_pages(unsigned int nr_pages, struct page **pages);
> +
> #ifdef CONFIG_XEN_BALLOON
> void xen_balloon_init(void);
> #else
> diff --git a/include/xen/xen.h b/include/xen/xen.h
> index 9f031b5..410e3e4 100644
> --- a/include/xen/xen.h
> +++ b/include/xen/xen.h
> @@ -52,7 +52,13 @@ bool xen_biovec_phys_mergeable(const struct bio_vec
> *vec1,
> extern u64 xen_saved_max_mem_size;
> #endif
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_XEN_UNPOPULATED_ALLOC
> int xen_alloc_unpopulated_pages(unsigned int nr_pages, struct page
> **pages);
> void xen_free_unpopulated_pages(unsigned int nr_pages, struct page
> **pages);
> +#else
> +#define xen_alloc_unpopulated_pages xen_alloc_ballooned_pages
> +#define xen_free_unpopulated_pages xen_free_ballooned_pages
Could you please make those inline functions instead?
Other than that I'm fine with the approach.
Juergen
Download attachment "OpenPGP_0xB0DE9DD628BF132F.asc" of type "application/pgp-keys" (3092 bytes)
Download attachment "OpenPGP_signature" of type "application/pgp-signature" (496 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists