[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1424255708.29983.5.camel@x220>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 11:35:08 +0100
From: Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>
To: Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com,
konrad.wilk@...cle.com, david.vrabel@...rix.com,
boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/13] xen: allow more than 512 GB of RAM for 64 bit
pv-domains
On Wed, 2015-02-18 at 10:37 +0100, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 02/18/2015 10:21 AM, Paul Bolle wrote:
> > On Wed, 2015-02-18 at 07:52 +0100, Juergen Gross wrote:
> >> +choice
> >> + prompt "Support pv-domains larger than 512GB"
> >> + default XEN_512GB_NONE
> >> + help
> >> + Support paravirtualized domains with more than 512GB of RAM.
> >> +
> >> + The Xen tools and crash dump analysis tools might not support
> >> + pv-domains with more than 512 GB of RAM. This option controls the
> >> + default setting of the kernel to use only up to 512 GB or more.
> >> + It is always possible to change the default via specifying the
> >> + boot parameter "xen_512gb_limit".
> >> +
> >> + config XEN_512GB_NONE
> >> + bool "neither dom0 nor domUs can be larger than 512GB"
> >> + config XEN_512GB_DOM0
> >> + bool "dom0 can be larger than 512GB, domUs not"
> >> + config XEN_512GB_DOMU
> >> + bool "domUs can be larger than 512GB, dom0 not"
> >> + config XEN_512GB_ALL
> >> + bool "dom0 and domUs can be larger than 512GB"
> >> +endchoice
> >
> > So there are actually two independent limits, configured through a
> > choice with four entries. Would using just two separate Kconfig symbols
> > (XEN_512GB_DOM0 and XEN_512GB_DOMU) without a choice wrapper also work?
>
> Yes.
>
> > Because ...
> >
> >> +endif
[...]
> >> @@ -85,6 +87,27 @@ static struct {
> >> */
> >> #define EXTRA_MEM_RATIO (10)
> >>
> >> +static bool xen_dom0_512gb_limit __initdata =
> >> + IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_XEN_512GB_NONE) || IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_XEN_512GB_DOMU);
> >
> > ... then this could be something like:
> > static bool xen_dom0_512gb_limit __initdata = !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_XEN_512GB_DOM0);
> >
> >> +static bool xen_domu_512gb_limit __initdata =
> >> + IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_XEN_512GB_NONE) || IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_XEN_512GB_DOM0);
> >> +
> >
> > and this likewise:
> > static bool xen_domu_512gb_limit __initdata = !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_XEN_512GB_DOMU);
> >
> > Correct?
>
> Yes.
>
> That's a matter of taste, I think.
Well, my suggestion does look simpler. Anyhow, I'll be glad to let the
maintainers decide.
> >
> >> +static int __init xen_parse_512gb(char *arg)
> >> +{
> >> + bool val = false;
> >> +
> >> + if (!arg)
> >> + val = true;
> >> + else if (strtobool(arg, &val))
> >> + return 1;
> >> +
> >> + xen_dom0_512gb_limit = val;
> >> + xen_domu_512gb_limit = val;
> >> +
> >> + return 0;
> >> +}
> >> +early_param("xen_512gb_limit", xen_parse_512gb);
> >> +
> >> static void __init xen_add_extra_mem(phys_addr_t start, phys_addr_t size)
> >> {
> >> int i;
> >
> > So one can configure these two limits separately, but the kernel
> > parameter is used for both. Any particular reason?
>
> Yes. A kernel is running only either as Dom0 or as domU at a given time.
> Having two parameters here would be nonsense, as only one could apply.
I see.
> And being able to configure both limits separately does make sense,
> of course.
Thanks,
Paul Bolle
--
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