Re: [RFC PATCH 08/35] Add Xen-specific memory management definitions

On Sun, May 14, 2006 at 11:44:18PM -0700, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
> I'm sure you considered this, but decided to be tricky. Why?
> No way to find the safe number of machine pages in a guest?

In addition to wanting to support holes, the number of machine
pages will usually change when you move it to another machine.

    christian

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

References:
- [RFC PATCH 00/35] Xen i386 paravirtualization support
  - From: Chris Wright <[email protected]>
- [RFC PATCH 08/35] Add Xen-specific memory management definitions
  - From: Chris Wright <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC PATCH 08/35] Add Xen-specific memory management definitions
  - From: Pete Zaitcev <[email protected]>

Prev by Date: Re: rt20 scheduling latency testcase and failure data
Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 5/6] Have ia64 use add_active_range() and free_area_init_nodes
Previous by thread: Re: [RFC PATCH 08/35] Add Xen-specific memory management definitions
Next by thread: Re: [RFC PATCH 08/35] Add Xen-specific memory management definitions
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [Kernel Newbies] [Netfilter] [Bugtraq] [Photo] [Stuff] [Gimp] [Yosemite News] [MIPS Linux] [ARM Linux] [Linux Security] [Linux RAID] [Video 4 Linux] [Linux for the blind] [Linux Resources]