From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=33449 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ogckt-0005Pq-5N
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 04 Aug 2010 08:07:32 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <gleb@redhat.com>) id 1Ogcko-0000Vf-Dl
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 04 Aug 2010 08:07:30 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:56390)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <gleb@redhat.com>) id 1Ogcko-0000VQ-6Z
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 04 Aug 2010 08:07:26 -0400
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2010 15:07:21 +0300
From: Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Anyone seeing huge slowdown launching qemu with
	Linux 2.6.35?
Message-ID: <20100804120721.GG10499@redhat.com>
References: <4C585F5B.5070502@codemonkey.ws> <4C58635B.7020407@redhat.com>
	<20100803190525.GB16570@redhat.com>
	<4C586AB9.5040302@codemonkey.ws> <4C586CF9.7030206@redhat.com>
	<20100803220628.GC28523@amd.home.annexia.org>
	<4C59009B.1050500@redhat.com>
	<20100804092428.GD28523@amd.home.annexia.org>
	<4C593857.9040602@redhat.com>
	<20100804113318.GE28523@amd.home.annexia.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20100804113318.GE28523@amd.home.annexia.org>
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: "Richard W.M. Jones" <rjones@redhat.com>
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 12:33:18PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 12:52:23PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >  On 08/04/2010 12:24 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>Just like the initrd?
> > >>There isn't enough address space for a 100MB initrd in ROM.
> > >Because of limits of the original PC, sure, where you had to fit
> > >everything in 0xa0000-0xfffff or whatever it was.
> > >
> > >But this isn't a real PC.
> > >
> > >You can map the read-only memory anywhere you want.
> > 
> > I wasn't talking about the 1MB limit, rather the 4GB limit.  Of
> > that, 3-3.5GB are reserved for RAM, 0.5-1GB for PCI.  Putting large
> > amounts of ROM in that space will cost us PCI space.
> 
> I'm only allocating 500MB of RAM, so there's easily enough space to
> put a large ROM, with tons of room for growth (of both RAM and ROM).
> Yes, even real hardware has done this.  The Weitek math copro mapped
> itself in at physical memory addresses c0000000 (a 32 MB window IIRC).
> 
c0000000 is 3G. This is where PCI windows starts usually  (configurable
in the chipset). Don't see anything unusual in this particular HW.

--
			Gleb.