From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-12.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D844EC433ED for ; Tue, 18 May 2021 12:13:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.xenproject.org (lists.xenproject.org [192.237.175.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9331960C41 for ; Tue, 18 May 2021 12:13:33 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 9331960C41 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=xen.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Received: from list by lists.xenproject.org with outflank-mailman.129157.242462 (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1liybE-00029o-Tp; Tue, 18 May 2021 12:13:24 +0000 X-Outflank-Mailman: Message body and most headers restored to incoming version Received: by outflank-mailman (output) from mailman id 129157.242462; Tue, 18 May 2021 12:13:24 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.xenproject.org) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1liybE-00029h-Qk; Tue, 18 May 2021 12:13:24 +0000 Received: by outflank-mailman (input) for mailman id 129157; Tue, 18 May 2021 12:13:23 +0000 Received: from mail.xenproject.org ([104.130.215.37]) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1liybD-00029b-M4 for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Tue, 18 May 2021 12:13:23 +0000 Received: from xenbits.xenproject.org ([104.239.192.120]) by mail.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1liybD-0002Dq-9v; Tue, 18 May 2021 12:13:23 +0000 Received: from [54.239.6.185] (helo=a483e7b01a66.ant.amazon.com) by xenbits.xenproject.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1liybD-0001fz-3z; Tue, 18 May 2021 12:13:23 +0000 X-BeenThere: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org List-Id: Xen developer discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Precedence: list Sender: "Xen-devel" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=xen.org; s=20200302mail; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To: MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:From:References:Cc:To:Subject; bh=pM30EnypZaP2BuhRnIaEemhN0UI2YBiwJXbTiA4Khus=; b=3su872PzYVx/huA7JB+KkOJ74S an8Y9jKSi2ai9tzSAegtpIrbyreR9qeiU3N6K38k9sz1PWrjo75j4GL3W3Heig+rKvpu64Pu94pXn aqjiOWldfU942gTgqUcEF8cR3LFt0Zu3IEmjhh8AK9ENLJltUP6GxWg5VzxHfDaajlkE=; Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/10] xen/arm: intruduce alloc_domstatic_pages To: Penny Zheng , Jan Beulich Cc: Bertrand Marquis , Wei Chen , nd , "xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org" , "sstabellini@kernel.org" References: <20210518052113.725808-1-penny.zheng@arm.com> <20210518052113.725808-8-penny.zheng@arm.com> <7e4706dc-70ea-4dc9-3d70-f07396b462d8@suse.com> From: Julien Grall Message-ID: <75275b2f-9de3-944a-d55c-a62bbbf1bb8c@xen.org> Date: Tue, 18 May 2021 13:13:21 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-GB Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Penny, On 18/05/2021 09:57, Penny Zheng wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jan Beulich >> Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2021 3:35 PM >> To: Penny Zheng >> Cc: Bertrand Marquis ; Wei Chen >> ; nd ; xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; >> sstabellini@kernel.org; julien@xen.org >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/10] xen/arm: intruduce alloc_domstatic_pages >> >> On 18.05.2021 07:21, Penny Zheng wrote: >>> --- a/xen/common/page_alloc.c >>> +++ b/xen/common/page_alloc.c >>> @@ -2447,6 +2447,9 @@ int assign_pages( >>> { >>> ASSERT(page_get_owner(&pg[i]) == NULL); >>> page_set_owner(&pg[i], d); >>> + /* use page_set_reserved_owner to set its reserved domain owner. >> */ >>> + if ( (pg[i].count_info & PGC_reserved) ) >>> + page_set_reserved_owner(&pg[i], d); >> >> Now this is puzzling: What's the point of setting two owner fields to the same >> value? I also don't recall you having introduced >> page_set_reserved_owner() for x86, so how is this going to build there? >> > > Thanks for pointing out that it will fail on x86. > As for the same value, sure, I shall change it to domid_t domid to record its reserved owner. > Only domid is enough for differentiate. > And even when domain get rebooted, struct domain may be destroyed, but domid will stays > The same. > Major user cases for domain on static allocation are referring to the whole system are static, > No runtime creation. One may want to have static memory yet doesn't care about the domid. So I am not in favor to restrict about the domid unless there is no other way. Cheers, -- Julien Grall