[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH QEMU] Transparent Hugepage Support #3
From: |
Andrea Arcangeli |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH QEMU] Transparent Hugepage Support #3 |
Date: |
Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:14:01 +0100 |
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 03:05:57PM +0000, Paul Brook wrote:
> > + if (size >= PREFERRED_RAM_ALIGN)
> > + new_block->host = qemu_memalign(PREFERRED_RAM_ALIGN, size);
> >
>
> Is this deliberately bigger-than rather than multiple-of?
> Having the size not be a multiple of alignment seems somewhat strange, it's
> always going to be wrong at one end...
Size not multiple I think is legitimate, the below-4G chunk isn't
required to end 2M aligned, all it matters is that the above-4G then
starts aligned. In short one thing to add in the future as parameter
to qemu_ram_alloc is the physical address that the host virtual
address corresponds to. The guest physical address that the host
retval corresponds to, has to be aligned with PREFERRED_RAM_ALIGN for
NPT/EPT to work. I don't think it's a big concern right now.
- [Qemu-devel] [PATCH QEMU] Transparent Hugepage Support #3, Andrea Arcangeli, 2010/03/17
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH QEMU] Transparent Hugepage Support #3, Paul Brook, 2010/03/17
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH QEMU] Transparent Hugepage Support #3,
Andrea Arcangeli <=
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH QEMU] Transparent Hugepage Support #3, Paul Brook, 2010/03/17
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH QEMU] Transparent Hugepage Support #3, Andrea Arcangeli, 2010/03/17
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH QEMU] Transparent Hugepage Support #3, Paul Brook, 2010/03/17
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH QEMU] Transparent Hugepage Support #3, Andrea Arcangeli, 2010/03/17
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH QEMU] Transparent Hugepage Support #3, Paul Brook, 2010/03/17
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH QEMU] Transparent Hugepage Support #3, Andrea Arcangeli, 2010/03/17