search for: jjuist

...inly not be a pain for the VM. So I'm open to new interfaces. I just want those new interfaces to make sense, and be low latency and simple for the VM to do. I'm objecting to the incredibly baroque and heavy-weight one that can return near-infinite amounts of memory. The real advantage of jjuist the existing "alloc_pages()" model is that I think the ballooning people can use that to *test* things out. If it turns out that taking and releasing the VM locks is a big cost, we can see if a batch interface that allows you to get tens of pages at the same time is worth it. So yes, I...

...inly not be a pain for the VM. So I'm open to new interfaces. I just want those new interfaces to make sense, and be low latency and simple for the VM to do. I'm objecting to the incredibly baroque and heavy-weight one that can return near-infinite amounts of memory. The real advantage of jjuist the existing "alloc_pages()" model is that I think the ballooning people can use that to *test* things out. If it turns out that taking and releasing the VM locks is a big cost, we can see if a batch interface that allows you to get tens of pages at the same time is worth it. So yes, I...

On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 6:24 PM Wei Wang <wei.w.wang at intel.com> wrote: > > We only get addresses of the "MAX_ORDER-1" blocks into the array. The > max size of the array that could be allocated by kmalloc is > KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE (i.e. 4MB on x86). With that max array, we could load > "4MB / sizeof(u64)" addresses of "MAX_ORDER-1" blocks, that is,

On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 6:24 PM Wei Wang <wei.w.wang at intel.com> wrote: > > We only get addresses of the "MAX_ORDER-1" blocks into the array. The > max size of the array that could be allocated by kmalloc is > KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE (i.e. 4MB on x86). With that max array, we could load > "4MB / sizeof(u64)" addresses of "MAX_ORDER-1" blocks, that is,