On 10/28/2014 01:39 PM, David Vrabel wrote:
On 28/10/14 12:07, Juergen Gross wrote:
Okay, back to the original question: is the (up to) 64 MB virtual
mapping of the p2m list on 32-bit pv domains a problem or not?
I think up-to 64 MiB of vmalloc area is fine. The vmalloc space can be
increase
On 10/28/2014 01:46 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 28/10/14 12:44, David Vrabel wrote:
On 28/10/14 12:42, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 28/10/14 12:39, David Vrabel wrote:
On 28/10/14 12:07, Juergen Gross wrote:
Okay, back to the original question: is the (up to) 64 MB virtual
mapping of the p2m list
On 28/10/14 12:44, David Vrabel wrote:
> On 28/10/14 12:42, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 28/10/14 12:39, David Vrabel wrote:
>>> On 28/10/14 12:07, Juergen Gross wrote:
Okay, back to the original question: is the (up to) 64 MB virtual
mapping of the p2m list on 32-bit pv domains a problem o
On 28/10/14 12:42, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 28/10/14 12:39, David Vrabel wrote:
>> On 28/10/14 12:07, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>> Okay, back to the original question: is the (up to) 64 MB virtual
>>> mapping of the p2m list on 32-bit pv domains a problem or not?
>> I think up-to 64 MiB of vmalloc are
On 28/10/14 12:39, David Vrabel wrote:
> On 28/10/14 12:07, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> Okay, back to the original question: is the (up to) 64 MB virtual
>> mapping of the p2m list on 32-bit pv domains a problem or not?
> I think up-to 64 MiB of vmalloc area is fine. The vmalloc space can be
> increas
On 28/10/14 12:07, Juergen Gross wrote:
>
> Okay, back to the original question: is the (up to) 64 MB virtual
> mapping of the p2m list on 32-bit pv domains a problem or not?
I think up-to 64 MiB of vmalloc area is fine. The vmalloc space can be
increased with a command line option in the unlike
On 10/28/2014 12:53 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 28/10/14 09:51, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Tue, 2014-10-28 at 06:00 +0100, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 10/27/2014 04:16 PM, David Vrabel wrote:
On 27/10/14 14:52, Juergen Gross wrote:
Paravirtualized kernels running on Xen use a three level tree for
tra
On 28/10/14 09:51, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-10-28 at 06:00 +0100, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> On 10/27/2014 04:16 PM, David Vrabel wrote:
>>> On 27/10/14 14:52, Juergen Gross wrote:
Paravirtualized kernels running on Xen use a three level tree for
translation of guest specific physi
On Tue, 2014-10-28 at 06:00 +0100, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 10/27/2014 04:16 PM, David Vrabel wrote:
> > On 27/10/14 14:52, Juergen Gross wrote:
> >> Paravirtualized kernels running on Xen use a three level tree for
> >> translation of guest specific physical addresses to machine global
> >> addre
9 matches
Mail list logo
