From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE1B8C433EF for ; Wed, 8 Sep 2021 08:53:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu (mm01.cs.columbia.edu [128.59.11.253]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CA7C61176 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 2021 08:53:53 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org 4CA7C61176 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lists.cs.columbia.edu Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA9164B0F1; Wed, 8 Sep 2021 04:53:52 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: at lists.cs.columbia.edu Authentication-Results: mm01.cs.columbia.edu (amavisd-new); dkim=softfail (fail, message has been altered) header.i=@redhat.com Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mm01.cs.columbia.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xM4yjapNPiq7; Wed, 8 Sep 2021 04:53:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 951B74B0F2; Wed, 8 Sep 2021 04:53:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0752F4B0EF for ; Wed, 8 Sep 2021 04:53:50 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: at lists.cs.columbia.edu Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mm01.cs.columbia.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ar9HIzgWnMgV for ; Wed, 8 Sep 2021 04:53:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18A164B08E for ; Wed, 8 Sep 2021 04:53:49 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1631091228; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=Nc4j4dl7Mfy3UaeeqIQE2VyK+XGgfMm1ZSIO7tBQvPo=; b=AC9Xxfcn1IjltHqgPDwtMYgm1u74KfE77UZWRh4dCQppR7kWPW9saItnXCcrbD+2qXXwLE i48LysebnrOrXaX2HKS1PAnH+bUrNRLb0Yd5C+ttbXX75Eubc2xgVwKcMS5zya88K2PHAn ApfNzTzVZL8+zcEyAGnj+Ht4O60JXeg= Received: from mail-wr1-f70.google.com (mail-wr1-f70.google.com [209.85.221.70]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-13-OXogNqJxN5uRkCGkqToC9Q-1; Wed, 08 Sep 2021 04:53:47 -0400 X-MC-Unique: OXogNqJxN5uRkCGkqToC9Q-1 Received: by mail-wr1-f70.google.com with SMTP id r11-20020a5d4e4b000000b001575c5ed4b4so301715wrt.4 for ; Wed, 08 Sep 2021 01:53:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:reply-to:subject:to:cc:references:from :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=Nc4j4dl7Mfy3UaeeqIQE2VyK+XGgfMm1ZSIO7tBQvPo=; b=j6OcShUmnjSFDy/VE2I/vhukFZ0kO7qo2ZMlNFXCH3U4dnXA3VjxAhh2pqtDR0Z1V9 rMi57PHHgL8ZwgOyibbHSrtJFEoPdhlp7gC6X70BtcucrrGj3265otMRFCg6J8VqvRn2 Wckh5btlN0t2bssu0sdm5mhANWrAxix+IXXjkdJ/SmobEWMne+G50NNVhToDM0pvEd4T ATSJout4wZEDkZz/+MkyKwup5cixIS6HTKvCGvrU2okN6vYbWq52j0mmLPdAKwhWcdLe WNehqzrzzX1hX/IS2LI2qa6Uw6DCVmOcztloOAqyMtd2GaaIQBe64sKKLLeyupQkPLsi S2bw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533ah5d+7jfohSz+I+mu8u+e+y6yZ7+WmO3ZAFB6MaC7wqo+AXT0 KB7wKjquwfeQhv1IQEMqlLJMzkqliiy9JBi2KpVsAJtIGZXXeGGYRP2qKpt0GZyVxhkC4qedo6E vBH4iuqDYGXHGLVc/gKGWiTPi X-Received: by 2002:a5d:4c4c:: with SMTP id n12mr2683930wrt.19.1631091226541; Wed, 08 Sep 2021 01:53:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx0OyQfyVtK5Exxd/DvtUJw960vgzgLYmRmmpe68nxixS4vZOHSGJ0zd5nIoDWIHANb9FHFng== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:4c4c:: with SMTP id n12mr2683914wrt.19.1631091226349; Wed, 08 Sep 2021 01:53:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2a01:e0a:59e:9d80:527b:9dff:feef:3874? ([2a01:e0a:59e:9d80:527b:9dff:feef:3874]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z6sm1426152wmp.1.2021.09.08.01.53.45 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 08 Sep 2021 01:53:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] docs/system/arm/virt: Fix documentation for the 'highmem' option To: Peter Maydell , Marc Zyngier References: <20210822144441.1290891-1-maz@kernel.org> <20210822144441.1290891-4-maz@kernel.org> From: Eric Auger Message-ID: Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2021 10:53:44 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=eric.auger@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Language: en-US Cc: Android Kernel Team , QEMU Developers , kvm-devel , kvmarm X-BeenThere: kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list Reply-To: eric.auger@redhat.com List-Id: Where KVM/ARM decisions are made List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu Sender: kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu Hi, On 9/7/21 2:51 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: > On Sun, 22 Aug 2021 at 15:45, Marc Zyngier wrote: >> The documentation for the 'highmem' option indicates that it controls >> the placement of both devices and RAM. The actual behaviour of QEMU >> seems to be that RAM is allowed to go beyond the 4GiB limit, and >> that only devices are constraint by this option. >> >> Align the documentation with the actual behaviour. > I think it would be better to align the behaviour with the documentation. > > The intent of 'highmem' is to allow a configuration for use with guests > that can't address more than 32 bits (originally, 32-bit guests without > LPAE support compiled in). It seems like a bug that we allow the user > to specify more RAM than will fit into that 32-bit range. We should > instead make QEMU exit with an error if the user tries to specify > both highmem=off and a memory size that's too big to fit. That's my opinion too Thanks Eric > > thanks > -- PMM > _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm