Carsten Otte wrote: > Avi Kivity wrote: > >> Hollis Blanchard wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 00:12 +0200, Izik Eidus wrote: >>> >>> >>>> ok i was thinking, >>>> maybe we can rewrite the way kvm hold memory so more code would be shared, >>>> lets say we throw away all the slots and arch depended stuff, and we let >>>> kvm >>>> just hold the userspace allocated memory address, >>>> >>>> >>> With that approach, how would you create a sparse (guest physical) >>> memory map in userspace? I guess you would need to use repeated >>> mmap(MAP_FIXED), and that's starting to look very brittle. >>> >>> >>> >> It can't work on i386 due to the limited host virtual address space. >> > That's why memory allocation/preparation needs to be arch dependent: > i386 needs a memory layout different from userspace page table due to > your argument, and s390 needs to use the userspace page table due to > hardware features we want to exploit. > As Xiantao pointed out, x86 and ia64 can share the same memory setup > code. But s390 and ppc don't. Therefore, I vote for putting it into > x86 for now, and come up with an approach to share between x86 and > ia64 later on. >
But can't s390 and ppc use a subset? If you limit the number of memory slots to one, it's equivalent to base + limit. No? -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
