On Wednesday 03 February 2010 02:27:42 Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Feb 2010, Sheng Yang wrote:
> > Well, for us, we want evtchn because we want to improve interrupt
> > intensive passthru device's performance(though too big for the first
> > step, we have experiment patches, but would like to consolidate with the
> > solution of pv_ops dom0). The situation won't change if we still use
> > emulated APIC path...
>
> I think you should keep this as the last step: once you have all the
> other PV features working on HVM like Ian suggested, send a patch to
> allow a guest kernel to switch from emulated APIC to evtchn for every
> device.
> If you manage to keep it simple, it could be a win for everyone.
>
Make event channel coexist with IOAPIC/LAPIC is quite different from what we
are doing now, and Xen already have PV-on-HVM for that.
Of course, I also want to have a elegant solution in the end, so I would try
hard to keep things simple, and keep the code clear.
--
regards
Yang, Sheng
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home