From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Juergen Gross Subject: Re: dom0 pvops and rearranging memory layout Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 13:08:00 +0100 Message-ID: <54C239A0.9050605@suse.com> References: <54C22334.2070604@suse.com> <54C2321A.7020402@citrix.com> <54C246980200007800058C51@suse.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail6.bemta14.messagelabs.com ([193.109.254.103]) by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1YEd1w-00074A-BC for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 12:08:04 +0000 In-Reply-To: <54C246980200007800058C51@suse.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Jan Beulich , Andrew Cooper Cc: xen-devel , Boris Ostrovsky , David Vrabel List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 01/23/2015 01:03 PM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 23.01.15 at 12:35, wrote: >> I wonder whether it might be reasonable to extend contruct_dom0/libelf >> to avoid constructing a p2m where pfns of built data (kernel, initrd, >> p2m and initial pagetables) aliased with host io regions. > > For one, the problem goes away to 99.999% if using the advanced > capabilities of relocating the P2M and not mapping the initrd at all. No, it does not. I'm doing both and the systems dies at once. Even relocating the P2M to another virtual address and not mapping the initrd won't help if the related PFNs are relocated and, even worse, are made available for new memory allocations. > And then, such a change could easily end up being incompatible with > older kernels, which may (and do) build on the initial memory map > being a single chunk. Yes, I fear so, too. Juergen