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


[Xen-devel] Re: issue with domains having close to or more than 512G

To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Xen-devel] Re: issue with domains having close to or more than 512G
From: Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:20:25 +0000
Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 03:20:47 -0800
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <494A3658.76E4.0078.0@xxxxxxxxxx>
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: AclhAp93ryh0jOrs4UOGGdIOmqEo2g==
Thread-topic: issue with domains having close to or more than 512G
User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/
I think we should keep the current layout up to the point that the required
address space wraps past zero. Beyond that we can flag a new layout.

Who's surprised that a domain won't boot with nearly 512GB of memory? It's
never been tested, and it's not immediately an argument for messing with the
memory layout, unless it clearly will not fit.

 -- Keir

On 18/12/2008 10:39, "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Keir,
> the ordering of elements in the initial virtual memory arrangement is part of
> the official ABI, yet I would think some parts of it may need changing:
> When the complete space occupied by the initial mapping exceeds 1G,
> Linux won't cope at present, and obviously as soon as it exceeds 2G it
> really never can't with the current layout. 1G is reached when there is
> close to 512G available to the domain. I think that the only way to deal
> with this is to move the initial p2m map out of that range, at least in the
> case where it would cause the entire mapping to exceed 1G (or, if
> moving start_info before p2m, then 2G could be considered the limit
> here, but it would require fixes to Linux anyway).
> Are you aware of kernel side dependencies on this layout other than the
> initial page table setup needing to be made aware of the possibility of
> the p2m map sitting other than between kernel start and initial page
> tables end?
> Thanks, Jan

Xen-devel mailing list