Re: [PATCH V3 2/8] xen: Delay remapping memory of pv-domain

[Juergen Gross]

On 11/14/2014 05:47 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 05:53:19AM +0100, Juergen Gross wrote:
> > On 11/13/2014 08:56 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > > > > > +	mfn_save = virt_to_mfn(buf);
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +	while (xen_remap_mfn != INVALID_P2M_ENTRY) {
> > > > >
> > > > > So the 'list' is constructed by going forward - that is from low-numbered
> > > > > PFNs to higher numbered ones. But the 'xen_remap_mfn' is going the
> > > > > other way - from the highest PFN to the lowest PFN.
> > > > >
> > > > > Won't that mean we will restore the chunks of memory in the wrong
> > > > > order? That is we will still restore them in chunks size, but the
> > > > > chunks will be in descending order instead of ascending?
> > > >
> > > > No, the information where to put each chunk is contained in the chunk
> > > > data. I can add a comment explaining this.
> > >
> > > Right, the MFNs in a "chunks" are going to be restored in the right order.
> > >
> > > I was thinking that the "chunks" (so a set of MFNs) will be restored in
> > > the opposite order that they are written to.
> > >
> > > And oddly enough the "chunks" are done in 512-3 = 509 MFNs at once?
> >
> > More don't fit on a single page due to the other info needed. So: yes.
>
> But you could use two pages - one for the structure and the other
> for the list of MFNs. That would fix the problem of having only
> 509 MFNs being contingous per chunk when restoring.

That's no problem (see below).

> Anyhow the point I had that I am worried is that we do not restore the
> MFNs in the same order. We do it in "chunk" size which is OK (so the 509 MFNs
> at once)- but the order we traverse the restoration process is the opposite of
> the save process. Say we have 4MB of contingous MFNs, so two (err, three)
> chunks. The first one we iterate is from 0->509, the second is 510->1018, the
> last is 1019->1023. When we restore (remap) we start with the last 'chunk'
> so we end up restoring them: 1019->1023, 510->1018, 0->509 order.

No. When building up the chunks we save in each chunk where to put it
on remap. So in your example 0-509 should be mapped at <dest>+0,
510-1018 at <dest>+510, and 1019-1023 at <dest>+1019.

When remapping we map 1019-1023 to <dest>+1019, 510-1018 at <dest>+510
and last 0-509 at <dest>+0. So we do the mapping in reverse order, but
to the correct pfns.

Juergen
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/