[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] 32bit xen and "claim"
>>> On 06.11.12 at 21:40, Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> 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? No - Xen would still need to be able to access all memory when in the context of such a Dom0 (even address restricting that Dom0 just like we do for 32-bit PV guests wouldn't help, as e.g. granted pages from DomU-s may need accessing in Xen in the context of Dom0). Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |