On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 2:27 PM, H. Peter Anvin <h...@linux.intel.com> wrote: > On 03/06/2013 02:04 PM, Henrik Rydberg wrote: >>> >>> Sigh. This is why "keep the page tables together" is fundamentally the >>> wrong strategy. >>> >>> 8M means that we won't even be able to boot on machines with less than >>> 16M or so of RAM... I'm not sure if anyone still cares, but that is a >>> pretty aggressive heuristic. >> >> Maybe this should be a config option, given the ad-hoc nature of the >> chosen value? Anyway, the patch works. >> > > Can we make a sensible argument for what the value *needs* to be? 2M at > least makes a modicum of sense. Either way, it's clear we still have > plenty of cleaning up to do...
ok, let's stay with 2M. Please check attached v1 with updated commit log. Thanks Yinghai
fix_real_end_v1.patch
Description: Binary data
