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


Re: [Xen-devel] Vanilla Linux 64-bit paravirt guest support

To: Michael Abd-El-Malek <mabdelmalek@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Vanilla Linux 64-bit paravirt guest support
From: Mark McLoughlin <markmc@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 15:49:04 +0100
Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx>, xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@xxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 07:49:35 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <3883AEC7-3636-4809-8516-8870C1B9C7C4@xxxxxxx>
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: <47FAF285.10103@xxxxxxx> <47FBE3CF.4000107@xxxxxxxx> <47FD942C.5040503@xxxxxxx> <47FE1DB6.6050707@xxxxxxxx> <1207836684.16779.8.camel@muff> <3883AEC7-3636-4809-8516-8870C1B9C7C4@xxxxxxx>
Reply-to: Mark McLoughlin <markmc@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Thu, 2008-04-10 at 10:32 -0400, Michael Abd-El-Malek wrote:
> On Apr 10, 2008, at 10:11 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> > On Thu, 2008-04-10 at 09:01 -0500, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> >> Michael Abd-El-Malek wrote:
> >>> Is 64-bit domU support available anywhere at the moment?  For  
> >>> example,
> >>> what is the status of the git://git.et.redhat.com/xen-pvops-64.git
> >>> tree?  I pulled that tree and tried building 64-bit Xen domU support
> >>> (since this tree allows you to configure the kernel with that
> >>> capability, unlike the vanilla Linux tree).  But compilation  
> >>> failed in
> >>> enlighten.c because xen_smp_ops isn't defined in x86_64.
> >
> > Try building without CONFIG_SMP, it doesn't support that yet.
> Other than SMP support, does the tree represent a fully functional 64- 
> bit PV domU support? 

No, it's a work-in-progress - ia32 emulation is also missing and we're
tracking down a nasty pagetable pinning bug atm.

Even then it would only be on par with 32-bit pv_ops DomU, which itself
doesn't yet have all the Xen features of 2.6.18 tree.

> Does it also allow all hypercalls?  Put another  
> way: is a 64-bit PV domU from that tree less capable than a 64-bit PV  
> domU from Xen's linux- tree?

It depends on how you define "less capable" - e.g. some might think a
tree based on a 1.5 year old kernel  is less capable even if it does
have more xen features ... :-)

> >> Redhat have some patches which they're shipping in Fedora 9.  Once  
> >> F9 is
> >> out the door, I'm hoping they'll polish them into an upstreamable  
> >> form.
> >> I don't know whether that git tree represents what's in F9, or if  
> >> that's
> >> somewhere else; at the very least I'd expect you'd be able to pull  
> >> the
> >> patches out of the srpm.
> >
> > Yep, this tree:
> >
> >  http://git.et.redhat.com/?p=xen-pvops-64.git
> >
> > is the work-in-progress x86_64 tree.
> >
> > This tree:
> >
> >  http://git.et.redhat.com/?p=linux-2.6-fedora-pvops.git
> >
> > is what we're actually shipping for F-9. It includes the x86_64 work,
> > but some other paravirt_ops patches too, most of which are queued up
> > upstream.
> Which tree do you recommend I use?

I'd use the xen-pvops-64 tree unless you are specifically wanting to
help with Fedora's kernel-xen packages.


Xen-devel mailing list