On Wed, 14 Nov 2018, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 14/11/2018 22:18, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Nov 2018, Julien Grall wrote:
> >>>>> @@ -1319,6 +1341,129 @@ static void gicv2_do_LPI(unsigned int lpi)
> >>>>> BUG();
> >>>>> }
> >>>>> +static void gicv2_alloc_context(struct gicv2_context *gc)
> >>>>> +{
> >>>>
> >>>> Is it necessary to allocate them at boot? Can we make them static or
> >>>> allocate them when we suspend?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> We need to allocate dynamically because the size of allocated data depends
> >>> on the number of irq lines, which is not known at the compile time.
> >>
> >> Well you know the upper bound. Why can't you use the upper bound?
> >>
> >>> Alternative is to allocate on suspend, but I believe it is better to do
> >>> this
> >>> when the system boots.
> >>
> >> Why is it better?
> >
> > I'll reply here also to your other point because they are related:
> >
> >> Suspend/resume is not a critical feature in common case. So I would
> >> prefer if we disable it when we can't alloc memory.
> >
> >
> > It is true that suspend/resume is not a critical feature for the common
> > case, but proceeding as "normal" when a memory allocation fails is not a
> > good idea: if the hypervisor is so low in memory as to fail in an
> > allocation like this one, it is not going to be able to work right. In
> > no other cases in Xen we continue on memory allocation failures, even
> > for less-critical features.
> >
> > I suggest that we either allocate statically using the upper bound as
> > you suggested, although it leads to some memory being wasted.
>
> We are speaking of at most 2KB of memory. I don't think it is going to
> be waste given of the number of interrupts GIC usually supports.
>
> The more that we already statically allocate irq_desc.
OK
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
