Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 19 Oct 2011 10:05:25 -0400 | From | Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <> | Subject | Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] XEN_DOMAIN_MEMORY options. |
| |
On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 05:42:48PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Sat, 2011-10-15 at 09:05 -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > > > On 10/14/2011 04:41 PM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > > > > >While it would be very silly to put 128GB of actual RAM on a 32-bit > > > >machine, systems can have non-contiguous RAM placed at high addresses, > > > >which would no longer be accessible. > > > > Do you have some ideas of which machines that might be? > > Even if you were on such a machine, the discontiguity > (discontiguousness?) wouldn't ever be reflected in the pseudo-physical > memory map, would it? So since this variable controls the maximum size > of the p2m (rather than the m2p) it doesn't need to be larger than the > maximum sane 32 bit guest size (<64G).
I think it is the other way around. The M2P would not be affected but the P2M might? The "discontinuity" is in the E820 right? (so mega big holes in it).
| |