From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Jan Beulich" Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/11] x86: support up to 16Tb Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 15:31:32 +0000 Message-ID: <50FEBEE402000078000B85ED@nat28.tlf.novell.com> References: <50FE7BF502000078000B82F8@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <50FE7EBD02000078000B8355@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <8a71a3c9-6712-4b0e-b7bd-c30aa64fcc54@default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <8a71a3c9-6712-4b0e-b7bd-c30aa64fcc54@default> Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: xen-devel , Dan Magenheimer Cc: Konrad Wilk List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org >>> On 22.01.13 at 16:20, Dan Magenheimer wrote: >> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:JBeulich@suse.com] >> Subject: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 11/11] x86: support up to 16Tb >> >> Since TMEM doesn't currently cope with the full 1:1 map not always >> being visible, it gets forcefully disabled in that case. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich > > I agree this is the correct short-term (and maybe mid-term) > answer. Anyone who can afford to fill their machine with > more than 5TiB of RAM is likely not very interested in > memory overcommit technologies :-) at least for the next > year or three. Cloud providers may be an exception but > I'd imagine most of those are buying small- to mid-range > machines to optimize cost/performance, rather than > behemoths that expand to 5TiB+ which are highly performant > but often not cost-effective. > > Longer term, zcache in Linux (which is a tmem-based technology) > successfully uses kmap/kunmap to run on 32-bit Linux OS's > so I'd imagine a similar technique could be used in Xen? > > In any case, thanks Jan for remembering to handle tmem. > > One nit below... > > Acked-by: Dan Magenheimer Hmm, an ack on this patch is sort of unexpected from you; I would have hoped you would ack patch 10... >> + if ( opt_tmem ) >> + { >> + printk(XENLOG_WARNING "Forcing TMEM off\n"); >> + opt_tmem = 0; >> + } >> + } > > Maybe a bit more descriptive? I.e. "TMEM physical RAM limit > exceeded, disabling TMEM". Fine with me, patch updated. Jan