* Izik Eidus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-08-14 13:59]: > On Tue, 2007-08-14 at 13:24 -0500, Ryan Harper wrote: > > * Izik Eidus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-08-14 10:49]: > > > On Tue, 2007-08-14 at 10:09 -0500, Ryan Harper wrote: > > > > * Izik Eidus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-08-14 01:29]: > > > > > Hey Ryan, > > > > > thanks for the testing, i hope you didnt have too much problems to > > > > > get it working. > > > > > > > > Sure, it wasn't too much trouble. > > > > > > > > > anyway as far as i can tell it wont have problem to drive up to 256 + > > > > > 3.75 giga ram for guest. > > > > > if we want it to drive systems with even more ram we have two options > > > > > ( both very easily applied ): > > > > > we can add another cmos byte to a "future reserved" byte, or we can > > > > > use the 3 cmos bytes that i already added and say that > > > > > we store memory in the above bios memory at multiplier of 1 MB. > > > > > it is important we decide now how we want to store the memory, that > > > > > in the future when 256 + 3.75 giga of ram wont be enough > > > > > we wouldn't have to change bochs bios again. > > > > > > > > Yeah, I think we want to settle on a single method which gets us the > > > > most memory as possible. I think rather than doing the "future reserve" > > > > we should go head an move over to 1MB multiplier. > > > > > > > well this sound like a smart idea, > > > but what we have to think about is: > > > first in this way we have just 64 gigabyte of ram (unless we work with > > > the extra cmos memory bytes) > > > plus if we change the way we use the "normal cmos bytes", we arent > > > breaking compatibility with really old stuff that check the cmos > > > directly without doing bios interrupt? (i mean by ports) > > > > Hrm, yes. This might be an issue already. I just booted memtest-86 > > v3.3 with 6G, and memtest says we have 528G of RAM. Hrm, even below 2G, > > memtest still reports bogus memory values. > > memtest-86, report false memory values when the system is below 2G ?, in > this case i guess it isnt our fault... > memtest-86 was derived originally from linux 1.x i dont know if it even > support above 4 giga of ram. > > without the patch what result do you get from this memtest when runing > below 2giga?
It is accurate without the patch. It can see up to 2039M guest with no changes to QEMU. Also, if you apply the qemu size patch (s/int/unsigned long) you can get up to 3831M guest to run without changing the BIOS. The memtest isos I've tried have no problem seeing that. > > (win2003 get good memory information on 14giga guest as well, so i guess > the e820 from the bios interrupt side, is right) Yes, I've looked at the e820 and that looks perfectly fine. Not sure what the issue here is. I'll see if I can track it down though. > > We might need to go look at a newer BIOS spec to see how this is done in > > newer bioses. > > -- Ryan Harper Software Engineer; Linux Technology Center IBM Corp., Austin, Tx (512) 838-9253 T/L: 678-9253 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ kvm-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
