| |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
xen-devel
RE: [Xen-devel] Re: Are linker scripts needed?
> > Major benefit of your approach, from my thought, is that backend
> > driver in service OS can service both para-virtualization and
> > full-firtualization domain then, with a unified channel
> interface and
> > logic, right? I'm trying to understand how 'virtual smm mode' you
> > mentioned can be achieved, and thinking at least following
> > modifications may be required:
>
> I thought that VMX provided a virtual equivalent of SMM,
> where management and emulation code can run under the OS's
> feet without it realising? If this is not provided then I do
> not think the trick can work, as you would need to steal some
> virtual address space in which to execute the qemu code.
I'd be inclined to move to a model where we execute the device emulation
in the root (monitor) VMCS, using the same protection mechanism we use
for para-virtualized guests e.g. segmentation for x86, paging for
x86_64. The device emulation should should work like a normal front-end
driver, connecting via a device channel to a normal backend.
Infact, I really like this approach. It gives good performance, safety,
code reuse, and unifies the control interface. It does require a bit of
hacking of qemu, to give it the execution environment it needs and make
it connect onto the existing back ends.
Arguments against?
Ian
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
|
|
| |
|
Home