WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

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/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

[Xen-devel] Re: [patch 00/21] Xen-paravirt: Xen guest implementation for

To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@xxxxxxx>
Subject: [Xen-devel] Re: [patch 00/21] Xen-paravirt: Xen guest implementation for paravirt_ops interface
From: Zachary Amsden <zach@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 13:48:43 -0800
Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxx>, Rusty Russell <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Chris Wright <chrisw@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 13:49:53 -0800
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0702161312460.28871@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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>
References: <20070216022449.739760547@xxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0702161244380.26718@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <45D61C74.2000601@xxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0702161312460.28871@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (X11/20061206)
Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007, Zachary Amsden wrote:

For the most part, it doesn't disturb VMware or KVM.  Xen does need some
additional functionality in paravirt-ops because they took a different design
choice - direct page tables instead of shadow page tables.  This is where all
the requirements for the new Xen paravirt-ops hooks come from.

It still seems to be implemented for Xen and not to support a variety of page table methods in paravirt ops.

Yes, but that is just because the Xen hooks happens to be near the last part of the merge. VMI required some special hooks, as do both Xen and lhype (I think ... Rusty can correct me if lhype's puppy's have precluded the addition of new hooks). Xen page table handling is very different, mostly it is trap and emulate so writable page tables can work, which means they don't always issue hypercalls for PTE updates, although they do have that option, should the hypervisor MMU model change, or performance concerns prompt a different model (or perhaps, migration?)

Zach

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

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