[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <559FDDC7.3060306@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 16:59:19 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@...hat.com>, Bandan Das <bsd@...hat.com>
Cc: kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
qemu-devel@...gnu.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86: Add host physical address width capability
On 10/07/2015 16:57, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> > > ... In any case, please understand that I'm not campaigning for this
> > > warning :) IIRC the warning was your (very welcome!) idea after I
> > > reported the problem; I'm just trying to ensure that the warning match
> > > the exact issue I encountered.
> >
> > Yup. I think the right thing to do would be to hide memory above the
> > limit.
> How so?
>
> - The stack would not be doing what the user asks for. Pass -m <a_lot>,
> and the guest would silently see less memory. If the user found out,
> he'd immediately ask (or set out debugging) why. I think if the user's
> request cannot be satisfied, the stack should fail hard.
That's another possibility. I think both of them are wrong depending on
_why_ you're using "-m <a lot>" in the first place.
Considering that this really happens (on Xeons) only for 1TB+ guests,
it's probably just for debugging and then hiding the memory makes some
sense.
Paolo
--
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