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

["Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx>]

> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:JBeulich@xxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 5:03 PM
> 
> >>> On 14.01.15 at 09:13, <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>  From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk [mailto:konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 12:46 AM
> >>
> >> Perhaps an easier way of this is to use the existing
> >> mechanism we have - that is the XENMEM_memory_map (which
> >> BTW e820_host uses). If all of this is done in the libxl (which
> >> already does this based on the host E820, thought it can
> >> be modified to query the hypervisor for other 'reserved
> >> regions') and hvmloader is modified to use XENMEM_memory_map
> >> and base its E820 on that (and also QEMU-xen), then we solve
> >> this problem and also the http://bugs.xenproject.org/xen/bug/28?
> >
> > I'm not familiar with that option, but a quick search looks saying
> > it's only for PV guest?
> >
> > and please note XENMEM_memory_map only includes RAM entries
> > (looks also only for pv), while following above intention what we
> > really want is real e820_host w/ all entries filled.
> 
> But from the very beginning when these were proposed it was
> said that they would need extending from being PV/PVH only to
> also be usable for HVM. Such a change would be minimally
> intrusive afaict as at least the latter already is allowed for PVH
> too.
> 

if we make assumption on not breaking lowmem/highmem structure
in domain builder, then this change can be avoided.

Thanks
Kevin

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