Re: nsmux Documentation

2009-10-01 Thread Arne Babenhauserheide
Am Donnerstag, 1. Oktober 2009 18:52:57 schrieb Sergiu Ivanov: > Yes, this is the long-term goal, though I definitely won't advise you > trying this out ATM -- one of the most important issues is security, > about which nsmux does nothing but standard procedures, but it is > possible that something

Re: Xen domU vs. more than 652 MiB of RAM

2009-10-01 Thread Samuel Thibault
Thomas Schwinge, le Thu 01 Oct 2009 18:22:56 +0200, a écrit : > `gnumach-xen' is the stripped version of `gnumach-xen.', without your > patch. Which one I use of these two doesn't make a difference. But > then, are the debug section being mapped at all? IIRC Xen's loader is quite dumb, I don't h

Re: nsmux Documentation

2009-10-01 Thread Sergiu Ivanov
Hello, On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 09:45:32PM +0200, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > Am Mittwoch, 30. September 2009 18:36:34 schrieb Sergiu Ivanov: > > > It reads nice, but I miss an info: How can I activate nsmux, so I > > > can use the magic filenames? > > > > Thank you for pointing out! :-) > >

Re: Xen domU vs. more than 652 MiB of RAM

2009-10-01 Thread Thomas Schwinge
Hello! On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 05:46:18PM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: > Thomas Schwinge, le Thu 01 Oct 2009 17:24:55 +0200, a écrit : > > On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 05:23:21PM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > > Thomas Schwinge, le Thu 01 Oct 2009 17:00:43 +0200, a écrit : > > > > > There's a boots

Re: Xen domU vs. more than 652 MiB of RAM

2009-10-01 Thread Thomas Schwinge
Hello! On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 05:25:17PM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: > Thomas Schwinge, le Thu 01 Oct 2009 17:00:43 +0200, a écrit : > > > Attached is a patch I've found in my xen checkout, I can't remember > > > whether it works. > > > > Unfortunately not. I rebooted blubber with a kernel co

Re: Xen domU vs. more than 652 MiB of RAM

2009-10-01 Thread Samuel Thibault
Thomas Schwinge, le Thu 01 Oct 2009 17:24:55 +0200, a écrit : > On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 05:23:21PM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > Thomas Schwinge, le Thu 01 Oct 2009 17:00:43 +0200, a écrit : > > > > There's a bootstrap issue: Xen only provides 512KiB of spare bootstrap > > > > memory, which is

Re: Xen domU vs. more than 652 MiB of RAM

2009-10-01 Thread Samuel Thibault
Thomas Schwinge, le Thu 01 Oct 2009 17:00:43 +0200, a écrit : > > Attached is a patch I've found in my xen checkout, I can't remember > > whether it works. > > Unfortunately not. I rebooted blubber with a kernel containing this > patch; see the attached log file. Please also see xm dmesg, where

Re: Xen domU vs. more than 652 MiB of RAM

2009-10-01 Thread Thomas Schwinge
Hello! On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 05:23:21PM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: > Thomas Schwinge, le Thu 01 Oct 2009 17:00:43 +0200, a écrit : > > > There's a bootstrap issue: Xen only provides 512KiB of spare bootstrap > > > memory, which is not so much to build a pagetable covering 100s of MiB. > > >

Re: Xen domU vs. more than 652 MiB of RAM

2009-10-01 Thread Samuel Thibault
Thomas Schwinge, le Thu 01 Oct 2009 17:00:43 +0200, a écrit : > > There's a bootstrap issue: Xen only provides 512KiB of spare bootstrap > > memory, which is not so much to build a pagetable covering 100s of MiB. > > But why did it work until now? Because PAE makes page tables twice bigger. Samu

Re: Xen domU vs. more than 652 MiB of RAM

2009-10-01 Thread Thomas Schwinge
Hello! On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 04:23:22PM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: > I guess the box uses PAE? Yes, as Xen doesn't support non-PAE anymore. Also note that the kernel and hurd-modules that I use previously shouldn't have been much different from the now-used ones -- they were from 2009-04-21

Re: Xen domU vs. more than 652 MiB of RAM

2009-10-01 Thread Samuel Thibault
Hello, I guess the box uses PAE? There's a bootstrap issue: Xen only provides 512KiB of spare bootstrap memory, which is not so much to build a pagetable covering 100s of MiB. Attached is a patch I've found in my xen checkout, I can't remember whether it works. Samuel Index: i386/intel/pmap.c =

Xen domU vs. more than 652 MiB of RAM

2009-10-01 Thread Thomas Schwinge
Hello Samuel! I've done a few things on zenhost: upgraded the Debian GNU/Linux host system's packages -- not yet to Xen 3.4, but still left 3.2; ist 3.4 safe to use? -- recompiled the Xen GNU Mach, redid the hurd-modules, rebooted the system. Now, all the domains do start fine, but not flubber.