Re: Bug: Limitation of <=2GB RAM in domU persists with 4.3.0

[Gordan Bobic <gordan@bobich.net>]

On 07/28/2013 11:26 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> Andrew Bobulsky <rulerof@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 8:21 PM, Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2013-07-25 at 23:23 +0100, Gordan Bobic wrote:
>>>> Now, if I am understanding the basic nature of the problem
>> correctly,
>>>> this _could_ be worked around by ensuring that vBAR = pBAR since in
>> that
>>>> case there is no room for the mis-mapped memory overwrites to occur.
>> Is
>>>> that correct?
>>>
>>> AIUI (which is not very well...) it's not so much vBAR=pBAR but
>> making
>>> the guest e820 (memory map) have the same MMIO holes as the host so
>> that
>>> there can't be any clash between v- or p-BAR and RAM in the guest.
>>>
>>>> I guess I could test this easily enough by applying the vBAR = pBAR
>> hack.
>>>
>>> Does the e820_host=1 option help? That might be PV only though, I
>> can't
>>> remember...
>>
>> Alas, yes.  The man pages list it under "PV Guest Specific Options":
>> http://xenbits.xen.org/docs/unstable/man/xl.cfg.5.html
>>
>> You got my hopes up! ;)
>>
>> Carry on!  I'll be sitting here metaphorically munching popcorn with
>> anticipation :P
>
> We could implement that for HVM guests too. But I am not sure about
> the consequences of this for migration (say you unplug the device
> beforehand and then migrate to another host which has a different
> E820). That part requires a bit of pondering.

Just out of interest, what happens in case where the PV guests get 
migrated with e820_host=1 set?

Gordan