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


RE: [Xen-ia64-devel] Time for hybrid virtualization?

Quoting "Xu, Anthony" <anthony.xu@xxxxxxxxx>:

> tgingold@xxxxxxx wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > here are my random thoughts:
> >
> > * First, I am all for supporting dom0 VTi (as well as dom0 PV).  This
> >   should be an intermediate step.  Intel did that in the past,
> >   although I am not sure it was fully virtualized (what about GFW ?)
> Dom0 Vti didn't use GFW, mostly it used native FW, while Xen provide
> some
> Fake information, such as memory map block, and Xen will inject some
> Sal/Pal call.

I am worried with Sal/Pal.  How do you prevent dom0 from making host PAL calls?

> > * Building a dom0 vti means porting backend, balloon and all other
> >   drivers to Vti.
> Dom0 Vti just mean that cpu virtulaization is using VT-i( privileged
> intruction emulation).
> All other should be same.
> We may need to modify backend, ballon and other drivers a little.

If we really want to reduce kernel maintenance, it would be great to be
able to run an unmodified kernel.  But I am maybe going too far!

> > * What about performance on Montecito ?  If Montecito Vti is ~55% of
> >   Montvale, I'd prefer to keep PV.
> KB on Montecito Vti can get 85% of native,
> Roughly calculate,  Montecito Vti is ~95% of Montvale.
> Tukwila Vti should be faster, it adds more VT hardware support.

Ok, thanks.


Xen-ia64-devel mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>