xen-devel
[Xen-devel] RE: [RFC, PATCH 5/24] i386 Vmi code patching
To: |
arai@xxxxxxxxxx, zach@xxxxxxxxxx |
Subject: |
[Xen-devel] RE: [RFC, PATCH 5/24] i386 Vmi code patching |
From: |
Volkmar Uhlig <vuhlig@xxxxxxxxxx> |
Date: |
Wed, 22 Mar 2006 18:41:06 -0500 |
Cc: |
xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, wim.coekaerts@xxxxxxxxxx, jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx, chrisl@xxxxxxxxxx, chrisw@xxxxxxxxxxxx, chrisw@xxxxxxxx, torvalds@xxxxxxxx, anne@xxxxxxxxxx, jreddy@xxxxxxxxxx, kmacy@xxxxxxxxxxx, ksrinivasan@xxxxxxxxxx, leendert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
Delivery-date: |
Thu, 23 Mar 2006 18:00:51 +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 |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arai@xxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 5:34 PM
>
> > The idea of in-tree ROM code doesn't make sense. The entire point
> > of this layer of code is that it is modular, and specific to the
> > hypervisor, not the kernel. Once you lift the shroud and combine
> > the two layers, you have lost all of the benefit that it was
> > supposed to provide.
>
> To elaborate a bit more, the "ROM" layer is "published" by
> the hypervisor. This layer of abstraction will let you take
> a VMI-compiled kernel and run it efficiently on any
> hypervisor that exports a VMI interface - even one that you
> didn't know about (or didn't exist) when you compiled your kernel.
>
> [...]
>
> Going forward, having the ROM layer published by the
> hypervisor gives the hypervisor more flexibility than having
> the code statically compiled into the kernel. Consider when
> hardware virtualization becomes more prevalent. Perhaps
> there are places where today hypercalls make sense, but with
> hardware virtualization, you'd rather have the hardware just
> take care of it. CPUID is the only example I can come up
> with at the moment, but there are certainly others. VMI lets
> the hypervisor decide that it doesn't actually need to
> replace the CPUID instruction with a hypercall. The
> important factor here is that only the hypervisor, not the
> kernel, knows about these performance tradeoffs.
Very obvious other candidates are the shadowed system state registers
(cli, sti, CRx) provided by VT and the shadow page-table support as
defined by Pacifica. In particular since these features are dependent on
the specific processor revision a hard-coded binary interface doesn't do
any good. The ROM pretty much resembles Linux' system call interface as
provided today optimizing for the specific HW architecture.
- Volkmar
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- [Xen-devel] RE: [RFC, PATCH 5/24] i386 Vmi code patching,
Volkmar Uhlig <=
|
|
|