This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
Home Products Support Community News


[Xen-devel] RE: Xen/ia64 - global or per VP VHPT

To: "Magenheimer, Dan \(HP Labs Fort Collins\)" <dan.magenheimer@xxxxxx>, "Yang, Fred" <fred.yang@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Xen-devel] RE: Xen/ia64 - global or per VP VHPT
From: "Dong, Eddie" <eddie.dong@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 10:10:31 +0800
Cc: Xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, ipf-xen <ipf-xen@xxxxxxxxx>, xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 02:10:26 +0000
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: AcVKfesR741jQGkzQvWmdNAbNvskDgAAPPdQAAnH97AAJJJm8AAGJlmgACr730AABzFgcAAYTImwABTis7AAALccgAAAPutgABLQl4A=
Thread-topic: Xen/ia64 - global or per VP VHPT
Hi, Dan: 
      see my later comments as I have 15 hours time difference with you

Magenheimer, Dan (HP Labs Fort Collins) wrote:
>>> Per-domain VHPT will have its disadvantages too, namely a large
>>> chunk of memory per domain that is not owned by the domain.
>>> Perhaps this is not as much of a problem on VT which will be
>>> limited to 16 domains, but I hope to support more non-VT domains
>>> (at least 64, maybe more).
>> For the quick answer on this, we are using fixed partition on
>> RID to get 16 domains for start - to get to domainN.  But it
>> is for the basic code to work.  The scheme can be switched to
>> dynamically RID partition to get to >64 domains.
> But only with a full TLB purge on every domain switch, correct?
        Actually we have designed the rid virtualization mechanism but
is not in this implementation yet. Actually in this area we don't have
difference between your approach (starting_rid/ending_rid for each
domain) and high 4 bits indicating domain ID.  Merge this problem is
quit easy.

        In our implementation, full TLB purge happens only when all
machine tlb is exhausted and HV decide to recycle all machine TLBs(like
current Linux does). For domain switch, we don't have any extra
requirement except switching machine PTA(point to per domain VHPT).
> All this just says that a global VHPT may not be good for a
> big machine.  This may be true.  I'm not suggesting that
> Xen/ia64 support ONLY a global VHPT or even necessarily that
> it be the default, just that we preserve the capability to
> configure either (or even both).
            I am afraid supporting for both solution is extremely high
burden as VMMU is a too fundmental thing. For example: How to support
hypercall information passing between guest and HV? You are using
poorman's exception handler now that is OK for temply debug effort. But
as we discussed, it has critical problem/limitations. 
        The solution to solve that in our vMMU is that we keep all guest
TLBs in HV internal data structure, and we have defined a seperate TLB
section type like ForeignMap(Term in X86 XEN)/Hypercall sharedPage in
vTLB. Xenolinux or Device model or others can insert special maps for
that. This type of section will not be automatically purged when the
collision chain is full. In this way guest will not see tlb miss for
"uaccess" in HV to access guest data.
        How to solve that in global VHPT? I am afraid it is really hard.
Why do we want to spend more time to discard existing approach and
investigate on no hints direction?

        BTW, how do you support MMIO map for DOM-N if the domain-N is a
non modified Linux? I am afraid global VHPT will also eventually need a
similar vTLB data struture to support.

> Is the per-domain VHPT the same size as whatever the domain allocates
> for its own VHPT (essentially a shadow)?  Aren't there purge
> performance problems with this too?
        In our vMMU implementation, the per domain VHPT is only used to
assit the software data structure (per domain VTLB). So we are actually
not shadow. 


Xen-devel mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>