[Xen-ia64-devel] Paravirt_ops directions and next steps

["Yang, Fred" <fred.yang@xxxxxxxxx>]

Following http://lists.xensource.com/archives/html/xen-ia64-devel/2008-01/msg00230.html discussion on pv_ops, several of us from companies had a phone meeting on 3/13 on how to best approach pv_ops for Xen/IA64 in time to get code upstream kernel.  The mail here is to catch common agreement and approach.  For the meeting attendees, please correct me if the mail doesn't catch agreements correctly.

Group agrees to take pv_ops proposal described in http://lists.xensource.com/archives/html/xen-ia64-devel/2008-03/msg00107.html is the goal and best way to achieve a single image to run on both native and virtual machines (VM), though group also recognizes the architectural differences between IA64 and IA32 may not easy for IA64 to fully adapt pv_ops from IA32 and push code upstream kernel in reasonable time.

Isaku has been working a forward port of DomU to 2.6.25 kernel in git://gitorious.org/linux-2-6-xen-ia64-pv-ops/mainline.git with some pv_ops approaches, though not necessarily the same with existing IA32 pv_ops.  Group believes it best start with Isaku's code as base for clean up and split into small patches in pushing upstream kernel, and gradually adapting IA32 pv_ops; though intermediate code may have "if PARAVIRT_XEN", the goal is to have single image for both native and VM.

Group agrees to take dual-IVT table approach due to IA64 native is very performance sensitive in IVT handling, and will gradually be merged in to one when the performance can be achieved to match with native. 

Welcome community in contributing efforts,

-Fred

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