From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751792AbbGOE0n (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Jul 2015 00:26:43 -0400 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:39732 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750861AbbGOE0m (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Jul 2015 00:26:42 -0400 Message-ID: <55A5E100.3070900@suse.com> Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 06:26:40 +0200 From: Juergen Gross User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, david.vrabel@citrix.com, boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com Subject: Re: [Patch V5 00/16] xen: support pv-domains larger than 512GB References: <1436532481-1224-1-git-send-email-jgross@suse.com> <20150710133912.GI23038@l.oracle.com> In-Reply-To: <20150710133912.GI23038@l.oracle.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 07/10/2015 03:39 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 02:47:45PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote: >> Support 64 bit pv-domains with more than 512GB of memory. >> >> Following test have been done: >> - 64 bit dom0 on 8GB machine >> - 64 bit dom0 on 1TB machine (resolving p2m/E820-map conflict) >> - 32 bit dom0 on 8GB machine >> - 64 bit dom0 on 8GB machine with faked kernel/E820-map conflict >> - 64 bit dom0 on 8GB machine with faked pgtable/E820-map conflict >> - 64 bit dom0 on 8GB machine with faked initrd/E820-map conflict >> - 64 bit dom0 on 8GB machine with faked p2m/E820-map conflict >> - 64 bit domU (sizes up to 900GB) >> - 32 bit domU > > Woot! > > Thank you for doing that. I noticed that you used the 'normal' > sizes, but nothing as odd as '3145M' or such to try to break > things. Not sure if it is worht it - as the test suite that > Boris runs does run with some odd sizes to catch this. How did you notice the domU sizes from these lines? :-) I tested with sizes being power of 2 as well as other values (e.g. 100000 MB). > I only had one comment about the #13 patch, otherwise I think > we are OK with this patchset? Can I take this as an "Acked-by" for the other patches? Juergen