Re: Transparent paravirtualization vs. xen paravirtualization (was:RE: [Xen-ia64-devel] IRQ management)

[Tristan Gingold <Tristan.Gingold@xxxxxxxx>]

Le Mardi 25 Octobre 2005 07:49, Dong, Eddie a écrit :
> Dan & all:
>       This mail reminder me various stuff that XEN/IA64 needs to face
> as the results of difference paravirtualization approach, it is time for
> us to have a revisit.
>       1: IPI and lSAPIC stuff.
>               In deep virtualization solution (XEN/X86), xenlinux
> never use direct IPI operation, instead it uses event channel. Same with
> APIC.
>               XEN/IA64, using minimal paravirtualization (like
> transparent virtualization), we have to implement IPI and APIC device
> model in HV instead of changing xenlinux code. This becomes same with
> VT-i implementation, so we and can reuse VT-i code, Tristan?.
If everybody agree about this point, I will work on this (now).

>       2: VBD/VNIF
[...]
>
>       3: writable pagetable.
[...]
For these points, I don't know enough about Xen.  I may be able to comment 
later!

>       So, it looks like transparent paravirtualization can benfit in
> reducing OSV's validation effort, but also introduces a lot of side
> effort, especially with rapid development of Xen/X86 environment. Is it
> time to think about more than transparent paravirtualization for
> Xen/IA64? Or should we move to close more to Xen/X86?
I agree with you.  I think we should stick to Xen/x86.

Tristan.


_______________________________________________
Xen-ia64-devel mailing list
Xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ia64-devel