From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1O1LtW-00034L-HT for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 12 Apr 2010 11:49:50 -0400 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=46761 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1O1LtT-00033A-65 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 12 Apr 2010 11:49:49 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1O1LtR-0003Ck-DN for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 12 Apr 2010 11:49:46 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:8730) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1O1LtR-0003Ca-5B for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 12 Apr 2010 11:49:45 -0400 Message-ID: <4BC3410A.2040506@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 18:49:30 +0300 From: Avi Kivity MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Host vs Guest memory allocation References: <4BBA6803.3000008@twiddle.net> <20100405231821.GA27894@volta.aurel32.net> <4BC3088E.5080603@redhat.com> <4BC3345A.6090401@twiddle.net> <4BC337C2.2090500@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Alexander Graf Cc: qemu-devel Developers , Aurelien Jarno , Richard Henderson On 04/12/2010 06:39 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: > >> Pass everything through memory; will there be many transitions apart from trapping instructions and missing translations? >> > I don't see how that would help with the 64-on-32 issue. You still don't get a 64 bit address space from running inside KVM. > True. Like the other options, it's just another tool in the toolbox and doesn't solve all problems. You could cheat and have a 64-bit kernel under a 32-bit qemu. -- I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this signature is too narrow to contain.