Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S932342AbbGJO7r (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 10 Jul 2015 10:59:47 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:53743 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1754029AbbGJO7Y (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 10 Jul 2015 10:59:24 -0400
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86: Add host physical address width capability
To: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>, Bandan Das <bsd@redhat.com>
References: <jpg615ul1j8.fsf@linux.bootlegged.copy>
 <559E101A.7080601@redhat.com> <559E180E.8080308@redhat.com>
 <559E6BE5.4030000@redhat.com> <jpgy4ip6v1y.fsf@linux.bootlegged.copy>
 <559EC3FC.8050204@redhat.com> <559FD30C.4000209@redhat.com>
 <559FDD44.1020008@redhat.com>
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <559FDDC7.3060306@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 16:59:19 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <559FDD44.1020008@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1211
Lines: 30



On 10/07/2015 16:57, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> > > ... In any case, please understand that I'm not campaigning for this
> > > warning :) IIRC the warning was your (very welcome!) idea after I
> > > reported the problem; I'm just trying to ensure that the warning match
> > > the exact issue I encountered.
> > 
> > Yup.  I think the right thing to do would be to hide memory above the
> > limit.
> How so?
> 
> - The stack would not be doing what the user asks for. Pass -m <a_lot>,
> and the guest would silently see less memory. If the user found out,
> he'd immediately ask (or set out debugging) why. I think if the user's
> request cannot be satisfied, the stack should fail hard.

That's another possibility.  I think both of them are wrong depending on
_why_ you're using "-m <a lot>" in the first place.

Considering that this really happens (on Xeons) only for 1TB+ guests,
it's probably just for debugging and then hiding the memory makes some
sense.

Paolo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/