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

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 14.01.15 at 10:44, <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>  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.

Of course. But we're currently evaluating options...

Jan


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