WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

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/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] Question about implementation of 32-bit guests on64-bit

To: "Vessey, Bruce A" <Bruce.Vessey@xxxxxxxxxx>, <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Question about implementation of 32-bit guests on64-bit hypervisor (IDT-related)
From: Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 22:06:22 +0000
Cc: Ian Pratt <Ian.Pratt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Guminski, Stephen A" <Stephen.Guminski@xxxxxxxxxx>, Mark Williamson <mark.williamson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 14:00:31 -0800
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <7ECBFE60CB7F02478CDDDE40C985813A06951C9B@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: Acg48YXl4py+oS2vQwSgG5xRZucqnQADRenAAATU4YAAAt1pEg==
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] Question about implementation of 32-bit guests on64-bit hypervisor (IDT-related)
User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.3.6.070618
On 7/12/07 20:47, "Vessey, Bruce A" <Bruce.Vessey@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> We have some confusion regarding the assignment of hardware physical
> addresses to the HVMs.  If all 32-bit HVMs are run in legacy mode, then
> they would be restricted to using 32-bit PAE shadow page tables.  The
> maximum physical addressing of such tables is limited to 64GB, so this
> implies that all 32-bit HVMs must be located within the first 64GB of
> hardware physical memory.  However, your previous responses indicated
> that 32-bit HVMs do not have such a restriction.  So our conclusion is
> that 32-bit HVMs running in legacy mode using 32-bit PAE page tables are
> able to address hardware physical memory above the 64GB limit.  Is this
> correct?  Could we create two separate 32-bit HVM guests, assign each of
> them 64GB of memory, and have them run concurrently without any problems
> (assuming that the platform has sufficient memory installed)?

Yes. I believe that the Intel manuals are incorrect in stating that PAE
pagetables are restricted to 36-bit addressing. Processors which support
long mode have their physical address size advertised in CPUID, and I'm
pretty sure that addresses up to that size can be poked into 8-byte
pagetable entries whether the pagetable format is 64-bit-mode or pae-mode.
AMD state explicitly in their manual that PAE pagetables can address up to
52 bits, just like 64-bit pagetables, and that this is the architectural
limit. Furthermore, you guys (Unisys) have done testing on big memory ES7000
systems (>128GB), and those are Intel boxes -- and I expect some of your
testing has been 32-bit HVM guests? Given we allocate larger addresses
first, this would confirm that Intel really does allow addresses >64GB in
PAE pagetables in practice.

 -- Keir



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