On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 05:42:11PM +0100, Juergen Gross wrote: > On 15/11/16 08:15, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>>> On 15.11.16 at 07:33, <jgr...@suse.com> wrote: > >> On 15/11/16 01:11, Alex Thorlton wrote: > >>> Hey everyone, > >>> > >>> We're having problems with large systems hitting a BUG in > >>> xen_memory_setup, due to extra e820 entries created in the > >>> XENMEM_machine_memory_map callback. The change in the patch gets things > >>> working, but Boris and I wanted to get opinions on whether or not this > >>> is the appropriate/entire solution, which is why I've sent it as an RFC > >>> for now. > > >> While I think extending the e820 table is the right thing to do I'm > >> questioning the assumptions here. > >> > >> Looking briefly through the Xen hypervisor sources I think it isn't > >> yet ready for such large machines: the hypervisor's e820 map seems to > >> be still limited to 128 e820 entries. Jan, did I overlook an EFI > >> specific path extending this limitation? > > > > No, you didn't. I do question the correlation with "large machines" > > here though: The issue isn't with large machines afaict, but with > > ones having very many entries (i.e. heavily fragmented). > > Alex, I would appreciate if you could send me the E820 map printed > at a bare metal Linux boot. I suspect it is already larger than > 128 entries and the hypervisor is just cutting it off at the end.
No problem! I'll get this to you today. - Alex _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
