Re: [Xen-devel] (v2) Design proposal for RMRR fix

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 13.01.15 at 13:03, <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>  From: Jan Beulich [mailto:JBeulich@xxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 7:56 PM
>> >>> On 13.01.15 at 12:03, <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >    lowmem:         [0, 0x9fffffff]
>> >    mmio hole:      [0xa0000000, 0xffffffff]
>> >    highmem:        [0x100000000, 0x160000000]
>> >
>> >
>> > For [0x40000000, 0x40003fff], leave it as a conflict since either
>> > reducing lowmem to 1G is not nice to guest which doesn't use
>> > highmem or we have to break lowmem into two trunks so more
>> > structure changes are required.
>> 
>> This makes no sense - if such an area was explicitly requested to
>> be reserved, leaving it as a conflict is not an option.
> 
> explicitly requested by libxl but leaving it as a conflict in domain
> builder is just fine. later steps will actually catch conflicts when
> relevant regions are actually used (e.g. in static assignment, in
> hotplug, or in migration). 

But why do you think xl requested the region to be reserved?
Presumably because the guest config file said so. And if the
config file said so, there's no alternative to punching a hole
there - failing device assignment later on is what the guest
config file setting was added to avoid.

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel