On 10/07/2015 16:57, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > > > ... In any case, please understand that I'm not campaigning for this > > > warning :) IIRC the warning was your (very welcome!) idea after I > > > reported the problem; I'm just trying to ensure that the warning match > > > the exact issue I encountered. > > > > Yup. I think the right thing to do would be to hide memory above the > > limit. > How so? > > - The stack would not be doing what the user asks for. Pass -m <a_lot>, > and the guest would silently see less memory. If the user found out, > he'd immediately ask (or set out debugging) why. I think if the user's > request cannot be satisfied, the stack should fail hard.
That's another possibility. I think both of them are wrong depending on _why_ you're using "-m <a lot>" in the first place. Considering that this really happens (on Xeons) only for 1TB+ guests, it's probably just for debugging and then hiding the memory makes some sense. Paolo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
