[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] 32bit xen and "claim"
> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:JBeulich@xxxxxxxx] > Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 2:44 AM > To: Dan Magenheimer > Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; keir@xxxxxxx > Subject: RE: 32bit xen and "claim" > > >>> On 05.11.12 at 20:16, Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Does it make sense to have a runtime option that unsets the > > physical limit but disallows legacy PV guests? If this > > defaults to false for machines with RAM<=5TB but to true > > for machines with RAM>5TB, then the feature is "done" > > (AND we have put a stake in the ground to begin the > > slow obsolescence of PV functionality). > > That would be interesting: Mukesh's PVH code wasn't even > posted yet, i.e. you're proposing to render systems with more > than 5Tb unbootable (for the lack of a - necessarily PV - Dom0 > kernel runnable in that environment). Good point. BUT... couldn't a PV dom0 started with dom0_mem=X (where X is smaller than 5GB) still work? > But yes, the plan is to extend the 1:1 mapping beyond 5Tb for > non-PV guests, and going through actual mapping code only > when acting in the context of a (64-bit) PV guest (even 32-bit > PV guests can have the full 1:1 mapping). That makes sense. I guess I am just worried that this will require enough surgery that there will be a long bug tail. And, since 5TB machines will be quite rare for the next year or so, deprecating PV domains on those machines earlier than on smaller machines might have a much smaller impact on the Xen community. But this is all just a suggestion... I will stop now and leave it in your capable hands. Dan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |