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

Re: [Xen-devel] Re: pvclock in userland (reprise)

To: "Jeremy Fitzhardinge" <jeremy@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: pvclock in userland (reprise)
From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 09:20:52 +0100
Cc: Jun Nakajima <jun.nakajima@xxxxxxxxx>, Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Xen-Devel \(E-mail\)" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Donald D Dugger <donald.d.dugger@xxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 01:21:16 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <4AB426D9.1080309@xxxxxxxx>
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/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <C6D8FE05.15275%keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4AB426D9.1080309@xxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx> 19.09.09 02:33 >>>
>On 09/18/09 01:06, Keir Fraser wrote:
>> On 18/09/2009 08:29, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>   
>>>> I don't think mapping things into application address space is really
>>>> possible without guest kernel changes. The guest kernel owns and manages 
>>>> the
>>>> pte that you'd be overwriting. Just blatting the pte would not be good 
>>>> form.
>>>>       
>>> Unless they sit in Xen's virtual space.
>>>     
>> Oh yes, I remember we talked about that before. That is possible, but the
>> design fell down on other points. I think guest kernel involvement, even if
>> only as a kernel driver, should make this more tractable.
>>   
>
>Xen's memory isn't mappable in a 32-bit compat domain, so you'd need to
>come up with something else there.

Why not?

>Does Xen still claim the top part of the 32-bit address space?

Sure - currently just for the compat M2P table. I can't see why other
things could be mapped there (the compat M2P table is at most 128M
in size, hence there's plenty of virtual space available).

Jan


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