Xen devel - Mar 2007 - [PATCH] dump-core: store .xen_p2m or .xen_pfn section in pfn ascending order.

dump-core: store .xen_p2m or .xen_pfn section in pfn ascending order.
So far the order isn''t specified and may be random in theory.
But sorted array is requested by crash utility for efficient looking up.
Fortunately it is the case except ia64 full virtualized domain.
Update document such that those array must be sorted and fix the ia64
full virtualized domain case.

-- 
yamahata


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

On 9/3/07 01:52, "Isaku Yamahata" <yamahata@valinux.co.jp>
wrote:
> dump-core: store .xen_p2m or .xen_pfn section in pfn ascending order.
> So far the order isn''t specified and may be random in theory.
> But sorted array is requested by crash utility for efficient looking up.
> Fortunately it is the case except ia64 full virtualized domain.
> Update document such that those array must be sorted and fix the ia64
> full virtualized domain case.
Put the qsort() in the ia64 code if it''s needed at all. But
shouldn''t it be
easy to generate the memory-area list in order in the first place?

 -- Keir


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 09:59:40AM +0000, Keir Fraser
wrote:
> On 9/3/07 01:52, "Isaku Yamahata" <yamahata@valinux.co.jp>
wrote:
> 
> > dump-core: store .xen_p2m or .xen_pfn section in pfn ascending order.
> > So far the order isn''t specified and may be random in theory.
> > But sorted array is requested by crash utility for efficient looking
up.
> > Fortunately it is the case except ia64 full virtualized domain.
> > Update document such that those array must be sorted and fix the ia64
> > full virtualized domain case.
> 
> Put the qsort() in the ia64 code if it''s needed at all. 
Moved.

> But shouldn''t it be
> easy to generate the memory-area list in order in the first place?
Dave, do you have any opinion?

-- 
yamahata


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

On 9/3/07 11:31, "Isaku Yamahata" <yamahata@valinux.co.jp>
wrote:
>> But shouldn''t it be
>> easy to generate the memory-area list in order in the first place?
> 
> Dave, do you have any opinion?
I''m just thinking, it looks like a static list to me. Maybe you
don''t want
to make assumptions based on the #define''d constants though? Either
way, I
think requiring xc_core_arch_memory_map_get() to return the required
ordering makes sense.

 -- Keir


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Isaku Yamahata wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 09:59:40AM +0000, Keir Fraser wrote:
> > On 9/3/07 01:52, "Isaku Yamahata"
<yamahata@valinux.co.jp> wrote:
> >
> > > dump-core: store .xen_p2m or .xen_pfn section in pfn ascending
order.
> > > So far the order isn''t specified and may be random in
theory.
> > > But sorted array is requested by crash utility for efficient
looking up.
> > > Fortunately it is the case except ia64 full virtualized domain.
> > > Update document such that those array must be sorted and fix the
ia64
> > > full virtualized domain case.
> >
> > Put the qsort() in the ia64 code if it''s needed at all.
>
> Moved.
>
> > But shouldn''t it be
> > easy to generate the memory-area list in order in the first place?
>
> Dave, do you have any opinion?
>
Nope -- pfn-ascending order in the two arrays is all I''m requesting...

Thanks,
  Dave



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel