>>> On 23.09.16 at 13:35, wrote:
> One early allocator for both platforms would be nice. And I have a feeling
> that this is the Jan's goal. However, I am not going to insist because you
> know ARM platforms better than I. So, I think that Jan should say what is
> his
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 12:42:10PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
>
>
> On 23/09/16 12:35, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> >On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 12:07:14PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
> >>On 23/09/16 11:50, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> >>>Hi Julien,
> >>
> >>Hi Daniel,
> >>
> >>>
> >>>On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at
On 23/09/16 12:35, Daniel Kiper wrote:
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 12:07:14PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
On 23/09/16 11:50, Daniel Kiper wrote:
Hi Julien,
Hi Daniel,
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 06:07:26PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
[...]
#ifndef CONFIG_ARM
/* Whole x86 ebmalloc stuff. */
...
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 12:07:14PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
> On 23/09/16 11:50, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> >Hi Julien,
>
> Hi Daniel,
>
> >
> >On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 06:07:26PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
> >
> >[...]
> >
> >>>#ifndef CONFIG_ARM
> >>>/* Whole x86 ebmalloc stuff. */
> >>>...
>
On 23/09/16 11:50, Daniel Kiper wrote:
Hi Julien,
Hi Daniel,
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 06:07:26PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
[...]
#ifndef CONFIG_ARM
/* Whole x86 ebmalloc stuff. */
...
#else
void __init free_ebmalloc_unused_mem(void)
{
}
#endif
and then call free_ebmalloc_unused_mem()
Hi Julien,
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 06:07:26PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
[...]
> >#ifndef CONFIG_ARM
> >/* Whole x86 ebmalloc stuff. */
> >...
> >#else
> >void __init free_ebmalloc_unused_mem(void)
> >{
> >}
> >#endif
> >
> >and then call free_ebmalloc_unused_mem() from e.g.
>
Hi Daniel,
On 22/09/16 13:07, Daniel Kiper wrote:
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 05:25:46AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 22.09.16 at 12:52, wrote:
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 03:42:09AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 20.09.16 at 20:45, wrote:
On Tue,
>>> On 22.09.16 at 14:07, wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 05:25:46AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 22.09.16 at 12:52, wrote:
>> > On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 03:42:09AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >> >>> On 20.09.16 at 20:45,
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 05:25:46AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 22.09.16 at 12:52, wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 03:42:09AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >>> On 20.09.16 at 20:45, wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 07:46:56AM
>>> On 22.09.16 at 12:52, wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 03:42:09AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 20.09.16 at 20:45, wrote:
>> > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 07:46:56AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >> >>> On 20.09.16 at 12:52,
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 03:42:09AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 20.09.16 at 20:45, wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 07:46:56AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >>> On 20.09.16 at 12:52, wrote:
[...]
> >> > Do you suggest that I should
>>> On 20.09.16 at 20:45, wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 07:46:56AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 20.09.16 at 12:52, wrote:
>> > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 03:57:19AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >> >>> On 20.09.16 at 11:45,
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 07:46:56AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 20.09.16 at 12:52, wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 03:57:19AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >>> On 20.09.16 at 11:45, wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 09:17:50AM
>>> On 20.09.16 at 12:52, wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 03:57:19AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 20.09.16 at 11:45, wrote:
>> > On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 09:17:50AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >> >>> On 19.09.16 at 17:04,
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 03:57:19AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 20.09.16 at 11:45, wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 09:17:50AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >>> On 19.09.16 at 17:04, wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 06:12:35AM
>>> On 20.09.16 at 11:45, wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 09:17:50AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 19.09.16 at 17:04, wrote:
>> > On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 06:12:35AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >> >>> On 12.09.16 at 22:18,
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 09:17:50AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 19.09.16 at 17:04, wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 06:12:35AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >>> On 12.09.16 at 22:18, wrote:
> >> > --- a/xen/arch/x86/setup.c
> >> > +++
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 06:12:35AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 12.09.16 at 22:18, wrote:
> > --- a/xen/arch/x86/setup.c
> > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/setup.c
> > @@ -520,6 +520,8 @@ static void noinline init_done(void)
> >
> > system_state = SYS_STATE_active;
> >
> >
>>> On 19.09.16 at 17:04, wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 06:12:35AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 12.09.16 at 22:18, wrote:
>> > --- a/xen/arch/x86/setup.c
>> > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/setup.c
>> > @@ -520,6 +520,8 @@ static void noinline
>>> On 12.09.16 at 22:18, wrote:
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/setup.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/setup.c
> @@ -520,6 +520,8 @@ static void noinline init_done(void)
>
> system_state = SYS_STATE_active;
>
> +free_ebmalloc_unused_mem();
Now that the allocator properly lives
20 matches
Mail list logo