Re: [Xen-devel] linux/i386: variable hypervisor hole not really variable?

["Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>]

>>> Keir Fraser <keir@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 10.11.06 16:09 >>>
>On 10/11/06 15:05, "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>> This doesn't stop you relocating the m2p table though -- you can do that
>>> regardless. You'll just have to lie about hypervisor_virt_start unless the
>>> guest exports this new capability. So at least you don't have to vary the
>>> m2p start address across different guests.
>> 
>> Relocating the m2p table makes sense only if I can move the hv base address
>> as well - otherwise I win nothing, as it's the first thing in the address map
>> anyway. The only thing that I get for free here is that I don't have to limit
>> memory to 16Gb when allowing compatibility mode guests, I can rather set
>> the limit at 166Gb.
>
>I'd do that anyway, if we had that amount of memory in the machine. Nicer
>than limiting guests to a range of the machine address space.

Sure, I want both - if the system has (and today it typically will have) less 
than
166Gb, then I want to move the boundary up (to allow the guest to have more
lowmem). Otherwise I'll keep it at its original place.

Jan

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel