[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100709061007.GD20370@verge.net.au>
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2010 15:10:07 +0900
From: Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
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 Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 10:33:08PM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> 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).
Hi Jeremy,
thanks for the clarification.
--
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