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

[Xen-devel] Re: The memory type of non-RAM address is WB by default?

To: "Cui, Dexuan" <dexuan.cui@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Xen-devel] Re: The memory type of non-RAM address is WB by default?
From: Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 11:08:24 +0100
Cc: "Su, Disheng" <disheng.su@xxxxxxxxx>, "'xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 03:08:51 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <F4AE3CDE26E0164D9E990A34F2D4E0DF0926DB8796@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/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>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: Ack08sfKD6uwiNRuQZe6GWvOlYpURQAAdtTiAABVSyAAAFQiVg==
Thread-topic: The memory type of non-RAM address is WB by default?
User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.4.0.080122
On 23/10/08 11:01, "Cui, Dexuan" <dexuan.cui@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Keir Fraser wrote:
>> Why take any notice of guest MTRR/PAT in cases where the host knows
>> better?
>> 
> So we don't treat this warning as a bug and would not fix it. Correct?
> I don't like warning. :-)

Well, one approach would be not to warn! :-)

Seriously: for anything which is not guest RAM, the host should really know
best what memory type it should be mapped as (probably UC or WC). Hence why
mess around validating a guest-requested memory type? The situation is
different of course for guest RAM being used in non-WB contexts for device
communications: in that case the guest does know best.

The alternative is to give guests a shedload more MTRR ranges. This is kind
of clunky and will also slow down the MTRR-range search which Xen currently
does when working out guest effective memory type. But it does have the
advantage of letting us have default type as UC, which I guess is the
default type on just about every real machine in the world?

 -- Keir



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