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


[Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH][v5] PV extension of HVM(hybrid) in support in Xe

To: Tim Deegan <Tim.Deegan@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH][v5] PV extension of HVM(hybrid) in support in Xen
From: Sheng Yang <sheng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 10:01:11 +0800
Cc: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ian Pratt <Ian.Pratt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 18:00:59 -0800
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20100304150431.GB25801@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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>
Organization: Intel Opensource Technology Center
References: <201003041737.14555.sheng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20100304150431.GB25801@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: KMail/1.12.2 (Linux/2.6.31-19-generic; KDE/4.3.2; x86_64; ; )
On Thursday 04 March 2010 23:04:31 Tim Deegan wrote:
> Hi,
> Given that we now have a similar feature from Stefano I'd like to see
> them resolved into a single patchset.

I think Stefano's patch focused on pv_ops dom0? We are focused on upstream 
Linux as domU...

I think we can get dom0 approach step by step. 
> At 09:37 +0000 on 04 Mar (1267695434), Sheng Yang wrote:
> > +   if (a.flags & HVM_PV_CLOCK) {
> > +           d->hvm_pv_enabled |= XEN_HVM_PV_CLOCK_ENABLED;
> > +           update_domain_wallclock_time(d);
> > +           /* Other vcpus are adjusted during the start-up */
> > +           hvm_funcs.set_tsc_offset(d->vcpu[0], 0);
> > +   }
> This still makes no sense to me.  Either it should affect the calling
> vcpu (i.e., current) or it should affect all online vcpus.

Yeah... I would make it affect the calling vcpu.
> Also, whatever the semantics, they should be documented in comments in
> the header file.


Yang, Sheng

Xen-devel mailing list