| |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
xen-devel
[Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] XEN_DOMAIN_MEMORY options.
On Sat, 2011-10-15 at 09:05 -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > On 10/14/2011 04:41 PM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> > >While it would be very silly to put 128GB of actual RAM on a 32-bit
> > >machine, systems can have non-contiguous RAM placed at high addresses,
> > >which would no longer be accessible.
>
> Do you have some ideas of which machines that might be?
Even if you were on such a machine, the discontiguity
(discontiguousness?) wouldn't ever be reflected in the pseudo-physical
memory map, would it? So since this variable controls the maximum size
of the p2m (rather than the m2p) it doesn't need to be larger than the
maximum sane 32 bit guest size (<64G).
Ian.
--
Ian Campbell
Every improvement in communication makes the bore more terrible.
-- Frank Moore Colby
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
|
|
| |
|
Home