[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Xen domU vs. more than 652 MiB of RAM
From: |
Thomas Schwinge |
Subject: |
Re: Xen domU vs. more than 652 MiB of RAM |
Date: |
Thu, 1 Oct 2009 17:00:43 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.11 |
Hello!
On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 04:23:22PM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> I guess the box uses PAE?
Yes, as Xen doesn't support non-PAE anymore. Also note that the kernel
and hurd-modules that I use previously shouldn't have been much different
from the now-used ones -- they were from 2009-04-21. Also, the Xen
version is still the same.
> There's a bootstrap issue: Xen only provides 512KiB of spare bootstrap
> memory, which is not so much to build a pagetable covering 100s of MiB.
But why did it work until now?
> Attached is a patch I've found in my xen checkout, I can't remember
> whether it works.
Unfortunately not. I rebooted blubber with a kernel containing this
patch; see the attached log file.
Regards,
Thomas
log-diff.gz
Description: Binary data
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
- Xen domU vs. more than 652 MiB of RAM, Thomas Schwinge, 2009/10/01
- Re: Xen domU vs. more than 652 MiB of RAM, Samuel Thibault, 2009/10/01
- Re: Xen domU vs. more than 652 MiB of RAM,
Thomas Schwinge <=
- Re: Xen domU vs. more than 652 MiB of RAM, Samuel Thibault, 2009/10/01
- Re: Xen domU vs. more than 652 MiB of RAM, Thomas Schwinge, 2009/10/01
- Re: Xen domU vs. more than 652 MiB of RAM, Samuel Thibault, 2009/10/01
- Re: Xen domU vs. more than 652 MiB of RAM, Thomas Schwinge, 2009/10/01
- Re: Xen domU vs. more than 652 MiB of RAM, Samuel Thibault, 2009/10/01
- Re: Xen domU vs. more than 652 MiB of RAM, Samuel Thibault, 2009/10/01
- Re: Xen domU vs. more than 652 MiB of RAM, Thomas Schwinge, 2009/10/01
- Re: Xen domU vs. more than 652 MiB of RAM, Samuel Thibault, 2009/10/13
- Re: Xen domU vs. more than 652 MiB of RAM, Thomas Schwinge, 2009/10/14