 Home |
Products |
Support |
Community |
News |
xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] HYBRID: PV in HVM container
| To: | Mukesh Rathor <mukesh.rathor@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [Xen-devel] HYBRID: PV in HVM container |
| From: | Keir Fraser <keir.xen@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 28 Jun 2011 19:39:36 +0100 |
| Cc: | George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Delivery-date: | Tue, 28 Jun 2011 11:40:18 -0700 |
| Dkim-signature: | v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=user-agent:date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id:thread-topic :thread-index:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=CCbIjzSlukwW5jnteKqpXaJzAOmm82K2d2OJ9eKVAIQ=; b=Gxg/e9k67Vn0aFkCmNONP/kLtFfDoLDO2Iqp7h0hXBCq/K2X9sLWdrho0cAjwZg5Ky 0jwWf8DVNbQkzy/ym2ykgi1nCybK02CKYk+6g34Btiu/SWzoVJYpm4ap8q2V7gjXb4/N FXMPXJ8natwIXT4JPwFTRk7EE92wi7Y/qcXTM= |
| Envelope-to: | www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20110628113205.1a3c5988@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| 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> |
| Sender: | xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| Thread-index: | Acw1wrrAyyODwU/NzkSRRb8/2Vp0+g== |
| Thread-topic: | [Xen-devel] HYBRID: PV in HVM container |
| User-agent: | Microsoft-Entourage/12.29.0.110113 |
On 28/06/2011 19:32, "Mukesh Rathor" <mukesh.rathor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Well, maybe. But we now have HVM guests, PV guests, and PV-HVM >> guests. I'm not sure that adding explicitly HVM-PV guests as well >> isn't just a bloody mess. > > Could we perhaps define a HYBRID type that will have characteristics > like, this runs in HVM container, it doesn't use EPT, it uses HVM > callback, etc.. We can they modify it without defining any new types in > future, say we find it works better with EPT under certain > circumstances etc.. What do you think? Yes, I don't mind the idea of some HVM extensions for performance, and that will probably become increasingly important. I just think we should support unmodified PV as a baseline, with best performance possible (i.e., the basic HVM container approach should support it). -- Keir _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [Xen-devel] Re: "ACPI: Unable to start the ACPI Interpreter", Liwei |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [Xen-devel] Re: "ACPI: Unable to start the ACPI Interpreter", Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [Xen-devel] HYBRID: PV in HVM container, Mukesh Rathor |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [Xen-devel] HYBRID: PV in HVM container, Ian Campbell |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
