[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] mmap in PV xen-4.0.1
- To: Wei Liu <liuw@xxxxxxxxx>
- From: Eric Camachat <eric.camachat@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 10:11:20 -0700
- Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 10:12:41 -0700
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=KgRmlE8Br+K5BeeLHJpbRrPwYmHSz1JUWK1do5mHNhg=; b=UYXTst3rsHJPWOBsJLKDQ+slsOq0HLq3WENGg63fpozlJPptp91veRB6mKpqftZS6s 8pQ5TdmtCxlhkSfHmPo8rgTyS+KkLnNxQnt6TvaeMcDLcKezRWLVy0NEqaKj+w83Zhpt 8SfJDjviudo1TAzP+hTlBDbAE1OFxShg05uAE=
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 8:10 PM, Eric Camachat <eric.camachat@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 6:31 PM, Wei Liu <liuw@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 12:45:20PM -0700, Eric Camachat wrote:
>>> The idea is move servers into XEN domU.
>>> I saw that 3.0 has built-in XEN support, I can try it later.
>>> But I don't know if other components are compatible with 3.0.
>>> I just wonder that MFN should equals PFN in PV (para-virtualization),
>>> so it should works properly.
>> If by "PFN" you mean "Physical Frame Number", then I think you made a
>> wrong assumption here.
>> MFN and PFN has no linear, 1:1 mapping relationship, let alone say
>> they are equal.
> I misunderstood in GFN and PFN, MFN and GFN should be equal.
> So PV domU has the same memory view with real hardware, right?
Let us back to my original concern:
Why remap_pfn_range() woks with my own device node, but deesn't work
with /dev/mem node?
This behavior is confused me.
Xen-devel mailing list