Re: [PATCH 5/5] vtd: Move intremap table to xenheap

Andrew Cooper <[email protected]>
Newsgroups org.xenproject.lists.xen-devel
Message-ID <[email protected]>
On 05/08/2026 10:44 am, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 29.07.2026 11:59, Teddy Astie wrote:
>> Interrupt remapping entries often needs to be accessed, and we're creating
>> pointers to it on demand, which brings a lot of complexity (e.g
>> GET_IREMAP_ENTRY() macro), move it to xenheap such that it's persistently
>> mapped and we won't have to worry about mapping and unmapping individual
>> intremap table pages.
> Afaic: No movement from domheap to xenheap except for _very_ good reasons.
> For the case here that is - maybe establish a permanent mapping using
> vmap(), but no change in where the memory is to come from. Whether such a
> permanent mapping is really worthwhile may also want supporting by numbers.
> You say "often", but you don't qualify / quantify this any further.

To expand on the "why" a bit more.

For systems with all RAM below the 4T boundary, domheap and xenheap are
equivalent.  We have 5T of directmap, but xenheap allocations have a
width restriction which is a power-of-2.

For systems with any RAM above the 4T boundary, you can't have xenheap
allocations be NUMA-local for all NUMA nodes.


As for "often", the IRTEs are modified every time a vCPU moves to a
different PCPU, because the target addresses need updating.  While it
probably doesn't matter much today, in the context of ASI it's something
which would want mapping permanently, rather than on-demand.

~Andrew
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.