Hi, Kevin and Anthony
Thank you for your comments.
For refcount:
- You may want to change PGT_va_shift to 32 like x86-64 since unsigned
long type_info is 64bit width on IA64. Or you either can define it as u32
type_info to save space since higher half is not used by your patch.
I thought I
From: Akio Takebe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 2006年3月13日 17:45
For refcount:
- You may want to change PGT_va_shift to 32 like x86-64 since
unsigned
long type_info is 64bit width on IA64. Or you either can define it as
u32
type_info to save space since higher half is not used by your patch.
I
Really a good job!
A minor suggestion for next in my mind is that we may add a simple
COMPILE option in Makefile or some .h file to be able to choice 1/3 byte
swap or 1/2 byte swap. People has some thoughts that 1/2 byte swap may
have better hash locality.
Eddie.
From: Dong, Eddie
Sent: 2006年3月13日 22:12
A minor suggestion for next in my mind is that we may add a simple COMPILE
option
in Makefile or some .h file to be able to choice 1/3 byte swap or 1/2 byte
swap.
People has some thoughts that 1/2 byte swap may have better hash locality.
Eddie.
I second
:37 PM
To: Dong, Eddie; Tian, Kevin; Akio Takebe; Masaki Kanno;
xen-ia64-devel@lists.xensource.com
Subject: RE: [Xen-ia64-devel] [PATCH] [RESEND] domU destroy
page ref counter
From: Dong, Eddie
Sent: 2006年3月13日 22:12
A minor suggestion for next in my mind is that we may add a
simple
Subject: RE: [Xen-ia64-devel] [PATCH] [RESEND] domU destroy page
ref counter
From: Dong, Eddie
Sent: 2006年3月13日 22:12
A minor suggestion for next in my mind is that we may add a simple
COMPILE option in Makefile or some .h file to be able to choice 1/3
byte swap or 1/2 byte swap. People
From: Masaki Kanno
Sent: 2006年3月10日 9:38
Hi,
We resend these patches. We made these patches to the latest
changeset:9161,
and reflected comments.
We tested the creation and the destruction of domU repeatedly 100 times.
As a result, there was not the memory which was not freed in xen/ia64.
Please
On Fri, 2006-03-10 at 10:37 +0900, Masaki Kanno wrote:
Hi,
We resend these patches. We made these patches to the latest changeset:9161,
and reflected comments.
We tested the creation and the destruction of domU repeatedly 100 times.
As a result, there was not the memory which was not
Hi Anthony,
Thanks for your comments.
Xu, Anthony wrote:
This patch is really good, community has been waiting domain destroy patch for
a long time.
Is it appropriate time to flush vhpt and machine tlb when destroying domain?
I have below concerns,
In fact, I have concerns same as you.
1.
