[Barrelfish-users] Fwd: How to reclaim the memory allocated by frame_alloc?

[Shi Jinghao (史经浩）]

Hi,

Yes, at first I was trying to send the message as a byte array as you
mentioned. But since my typical
message size is about 4~8 KB, and I found that Flounder generates a quite
long sending function (~15k lines
of code, I don't remember). This is because Flounder will divide the
message body into small fragments and
send them in a switch statement... That's why I choose to send the message
cap.

Is sending cap a expensive operation? I don't know. I thought I just sent
the capref itself (a few bytes), but not
sending the whole frame which the capref points to. Do you mean when I send
a capref of a 8KB frame, there will
be a actually a 8KB memory copy underlying ? If true, then I may really
need considering using the bulk transfer
library.

Thanks,
Jinghao

2012/3/28 Baumann Andrew <andrewb at inf.ethz.ch>

>  Hi,****
>
> ** **
>
> This is a very inefficient way to send a message. Sending the cap is an
> expensive operation. If the messages you are sending are relatively small
> (e.g. a few hundred bytes), you can send them as a byte array (e.g. uint8
> buf[len] in a flounder spec). If the messages are large, you should
> probably look into using the bulk transport library, which uses shared
> memory under the covers, but is more efficient about reusing the same
> memory and not transferring capabilities with each message.****
>
> ** **
>
> To answer your direct question, it looks like what you are doing is
> correct, but I doubt that the system correctly reclaims all the memory, and
> I know that revoke is broken across cores in the current tree. You may also
> find it is easier to unmap and delete the cap on both cores, rather than
> revoking it on the sender side.****
>
> ** **
>
> Andrew****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Shi Jinghao (史经浩） [mailto:jhshi at cs.hku.hk]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 27 March, 2012 6:28
> *To:* barrelfish-users at lists.inf.ethz.ch
> *Subject:* [Barrelfish-users] Fwd: How to reclaim the memory allocated by
> frame_alloc?****
>
> ** **
>
> Just realize that I sent the mail using gmail, which seems be filtered by
> this maillist. Please ignore this****
>
> if you've seen it.****
>
> ** **
>
> Regards,****
>
> Jinghao****
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: *Shi Jinghao* <jhshi89 at gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 9:23 PM
> Subject: How to reclaim the memory allocated by frame_alloc?
> To: barrelfish-users at lists.inf.ethz.ch
>
>
> Hi,****
>
> ** **
>
> I need to send message between cores in barrelfish (X86_32). And somehow I
> decide to send the capability ****
>
> of a frame that contains the message, since the message will have variable
> size. And I was wondering what's****
>
> the proper way to reclaim the message frame when it's useless.****
>
> ** **
>
> I create a message frame like this (details like error checking
> are omitted, also for simplicity, assume message****
>
> size is fixed (MSG_SIZE)):****
>
> ** **
>
>     // allocate a frame capability****
>
>     struct capref* msgcap = (struct capref*) malloc (sizeof(struct
> capref));****
>
>     frame_alloc(msgcap, MSG_SIZE, NULL);****
>
>     ****
>
>     // map to my address space so I can fill the message body****
>
>     struct my_message* msg;****
>
>     vspace_map_one_frame_attr((void**)&msg, MSG_SIZE, *msgcap,
> VREGION_FLAGS_READ_WRITE, NULL, NULL);****
>
> ** **
>
> Then I send the frame cap to another process (on a different core). ****
>
> ** **
>
> On receiver side, I get the message like this:****
>
> ** **
>
>     struct my_message* msg;****
>
>     vspace_map_one_frame_attr(&msg, MSG_SIZE, msgcap,
> VREGION_FLAGS_READ_WRITE, NULL, NULL);****
>
> ** **
>
> However, how am I supposed to reclaim the message? Based on my
> understanding, my current try is:****
>
> ** **
>
>     // on sender side****
>
>     cap_revoke(*msgcap);****
>
>     cap_destroy(*msgcap);****
>
>     free(msgcap);  // msgcap is allocated by malloc****
>
>     vspace_unmap(msg);****
>
> ** **
>
>     // on receiver side****
>
>     vspace_unmap(msg);****
>
> ** **
>
> But I don't know if this is the right way to do it. (Though no explicit
> problem occurs until now). Any suggestions on this?****
>
> ** **
>
> PS: on receiver side, vspace_map_on_frame_attr won't allocate any new
> memory, right? So after this, sender and receiver****
>
> will share the same physical memory. Please clarify if my understanding is
> right.****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks for your reading.****
>
> ** **
>
> Regards,****
>
> Jinghao****
>
> ** **
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.inf.ethz.ch/pipermail/barrelfish-users/attachments/20120328/964bf878/attachment-0001.html