Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 12:42:03 -0700 From: Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net> To: Juergen Lock <nox@jelal.kn-bremen.de> Cc: Blue Swirl <blauwirbel@gmail.com>, freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org, Andreas Tobler <andreast@fgznet.ch>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Toni <tonygio04@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] qemu git head 20100323 on FreeBSD - qemu-devel port update for testing Message-ID: <4BB2540B.90704@twiddle.net> In-Reply-To: <20100330191629.GA95521@triton8.kn-bremen.de> References: <20100325204423.GA46954@triton8.kn-bremen.de> <f43fc5581003301104x77c0e527m871b035a7364bd5b@mail.gmail.com> <20100330191629.GA95521@triton8.kn-bremen.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 03/30/2010 12:16 PM, Juergen Lock wrote: > I first tried to replace the endaddr in the !h2g_valid(endaddr) case with > ((abi_ulong)1 << L1_MAP_ADDR_SPACE_BITS) - 1 > if TARGET_ABI_BITS > L1_MAP_ADDR_SPACE_BITS (which comes from the condition > of the assert in page_set_flags() that was triggered on the ~0ul value), > but that caused the qemu process to grow into swap and made the box > usuable when that code was reached and I had to kill qemu. (The box has > 8 GB RAM.) And so I thought just leaving that page range unprotected > if only the start address is valid was the lesser evil... What's are the real arguments to the page_set_flags that causes things to go into swap? I can't imagine the range really being so large that it causes massive allocation within that function... r~
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4BB2540B.90704>