Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: ioremap: fix wrong physical address handling

[Simon Horman]

On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 10:33:08PM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> On 07/08/2010 09:24 PM, Simon Horman wrote:
> >> I think it would be a pretty large change.  From the Xen's perspective,
> >> any machine even approximately approaching the 2^44 limit will be
> >> capable of running Xen guests in hvm mode, so PV isn't really a concern.
> >>     
> > Hi Jeremy,
> >
> > Is the implication of that statement that HVM is preferred where
> > supported by HW?
> >   
> 
> I wouldn't go that far; the PV vs HVM choice is pretty complex, and
> depends on what your workload is and what hardware you have available. 
> All I meant was what I said: that if you're running on a machine with a
> large amount of memory, then you should run your 32-bit domains as HVM
> rather than PV.  Though Xen could easily keep domains limited to memory
> that they can actually use (it already does this, in fact).

Hi Jeremy,

thanks for the clarification.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/