Hi Michal, > -----Original Message----- > From: Michal Orzel <michal.or...@amd.com> > > > > Oh I think get your point. Let me try to explain myself and thanks for your > > patience :)) > > > > The reserved heap region defined in the device tree should be used for > both > > Xenheap and domain heap, so if we reserved a too small region (<32M), > > an error should pop because the reserved region is not enough for > xenheap, > > and user should reserve more. > > [...] > > > >> But your check is against heap being to small (less than 32M). > >> So basically if the following check fails: > >> "( reserved_heap && reserved_heap_pages < 32<<(20-PAGE_SHIFT) ) )" > >> it means that the heap region defined by a user is too small (not too > >> large), > >> because according to requirements it should be at least 32M. > > > > [...] > > So in that case, printing "Not enough space for xenheap" means the > reserved > > region cannot satisfy the minimal requirement of the space of xenheap (at > least > > 32M), and this is in consistent with the check. > > Ok, it clearly depends on the way someone understands this sentence. > Currently this panic can be triggered if the heap size is too large and > should be read as "heap is too large to fit in because there is not enough > space > within RAM considering modules (e - s < size)". Usually (and also in this > case) > space refers to a region to contain another one. > > You are reusing the same message for different meaning, that is "user > defined too > small heap and this space (read as size) is not enough".
Yes, thanks for the explanation. I think maybe rewording the message to "Not enough memory for allocating xenheap" would remove the ambiguity to some extent? Because the user-defined heap region should cover both xenheap and domain heap at the same time, the small user-defined heap means "xenheap is too large to fit in the user-defined heap region", which is in consistent with your interpretation of the current "xenheap is too large to fit in because there is not enough space within RAM considering modules" > > Let's leave it to someone else to decide. I agree. Kind regards, Henry > > ~Michal
