>>> On 11.09.17 at 10:49, wrote:
> AFAICT even with the change proposed I don't think
> dom0_compute_nr_pages will handle the !iommu_hap_pt_share case
> properly (ie: I don't see specific memory for the IOMMU pages tables
> being reserved anywhere).
Which (sadly) is in line with what the tool sta
On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 03:04:30PM -0400, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 09/08/2017 01:11 PM, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 10:56:33AM -0400, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> >> I am slightly confused by the use of 'need_paging' variable in
> >> dom0_compute_nr_pages().
> >>
> >> Because
On 09/08/2017 01:11 PM, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 10:56:33AM -0400, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>> I am slightly confused by the use of 'need_paging' variable in
>> dom0_compute_nr_pages().
>>
>> Because paging_mode_hap() and iommu_hap_pt_share are (almost?) always
>> true, we are
On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 10:56:33AM -0400, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> I am slightly confused by the use of 'need_paging' variable in
> dom0_compute_nr_pages().
>
> Because paging_mode_hap() and iommu_hap_pt_share are (almost?) always
> true, we are not reducing available memory for PVH dom0 by page t
