[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4C36B494.6060801@goop.org>
Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2010 22:33:08 -0700
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>
CC: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Kenji Kaneshige <kaneshige.kenji@...fujitsu.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>, tglx@...utronix.de,
mingo@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, macro@...ux-mips.org,
kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com, eike-kernel@...tec.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: ioremap: fix wrong physical address handling
On 07/08/2010 09:24 PM, Simon Horman wrote:
>> I think it would be a pretty large change. From the Xen's perspective,
>> any machine even approximately approaching the 2^44 limit will be
>> capable of running Xen guests in hvm mode, so PV isn't really a concern.
>>
> Hi Jeremy,
>
> Is the implication of that statement that HVM is preferred where
> supported by HW?
>
I wouldn't go that far; the PV vs HVM choice is pretty complex, and
depends on what your workload is and what hardware you have available.
All I meant was what I said: that if you're running on a machine with a
large amount of memory, then you should run your 32-bit domains as HVM
rather than PV. Though Xen could easily keep domains limited to memory
that they can actually use (it already does this, in fact).
J
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists