|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] Question about implementation of 32-bit guests on64-bit
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
|
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- [Xen-devel] Question about implementation of 32-bit guests on 64-bit hypervisor (IDT-related), Vessey, Bruce A
- Re: [Xen-devel] Question about implementation of 32-bit guests on 64-bit hypervisor (IDT-related), Keir Fraser
- RE: [Xen-devel] Question about implementation of 32-bit guests on64-bit hypervisor (IDT-related), Ian Pratt
- Re: [Xen-devel] Question about implementation of 32-bit guests on64-bit hypervisor (IDT-related), Mark Williamson
- RE: [Xen-devel] Question about implementation of 32-bit guests on64-bit hypervisor (IDT-related), Vessey, Bruce A
- RE: [Xen-devel] Question about implementation of 32-bit guests on64-bit hypervisor (IDT-related), Vessey, Bruce A
- Re: [Xen-devel] Question about implementation of 32-bit guests on64-bit hypervisor (IDT-related),
Keir Fraser <=
- Re: [Xen-devel] Question about implementation of 32-bit guests on64-bit hypervisor (IDT-related), Keir Fraser
- RE: [Xen-devel] Question about implementation of 32-bit guestson64-bit hypervisor (IDT-related), Nakajima, Jun
- Re: [Xen-devel] Question about implementation of 32-bit guestson64-bit hypervisor (IDT-related), Keir Fraser
|
|
|
|
|