This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
Home Products Support Community News


Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH]: Allow tools to map arbitrarily large mach

To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH]: Allow tools to map arbitrarily large machphys_mfn_list on 32bit dom0
From: Gianni Tedesco <gianni.tedesco@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 17:11:36 +0000
Cc: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Tim Deegan <Tim.Deegan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxx>, Keir Fraser <keir.xen@xxxxxxxxx>, Xen Devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 10:17:24 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <4D7E57460200007800036628@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <C9A026BF.14A37%keir.xen@xxxxxxxxx> <1300098009.17339.2110.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1300115112.17229.78.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1300115469.17339.2188.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1300115967.17229.82.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4D7E489302000078000365B5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1300118618.17339.2194.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4D7E4ED302000078000365E9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1300120438.17339.2202.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4D7E57460200007800036628@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Mon, 2011-03-14 at 16:58 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > It's 1GB which is enough to cover 1TB of host memory, which AFAIK is
> all
> > we support these days. It certainly buys us time compared with
> currently
> > failing at 160GB.
> 1Tb of *contiguous* host memory. And that's certainly not the limit
> Xen has been run on, and Xen itself is set up to handle 5Tb. Which
> I'm seeing to get exceeded on experimental(?) systems...
> And while I agree that failing at 1Tb is better than failing at 160Gb,
> I favor fixing this once and completely over doing a little bit of
> papering over the problem now just to require debugging the same
> issue again later.

Maybe a comment or a printk() would be advisable here then in the mean


Xen-devel mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>