| |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] xen: modify kernel mappings corresponding to
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 09:06:04AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-08-09 at 16:50 +0100, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > > > So I hadn't looked at this in detail, but I wonder if we can use the
> > > > MULTIcall for this? It looks like we need to do two hypercalls so why
> > > > not batch it?
> > >
> > > That was going to be my next question. We should definitely batch these
> > > if possible.
> > >
> > > > And while we are it - we could change the MMU ops to only do this on
> > > > initial domain and for the domU case do the old mechanism?
> > >
> > > We need this in domU for driver domains and the like, don't we?
> >
> > Sure, but I believe the majority of domU domains would not require this.
>
> The overhead of this stuff is low if not used, isn't it? Compared with
> the complexity of having domains know if they might be used as a driver
> domain or not that seems like the tradeoff to be aiming for.
>
> > I was thinking that when we start playing with the device/driver domains
> > we would want to escalate the privilige level (or perhaps not)?
>
> We don't want any escalation of privilege over and above what is
> necessary to be a driver domain, which is generally none.
>
> > Or
> > perhaps introcuce a new type - "if (xen_driver_domain())" to recognize
> > that we are special ?
>
> Where does the information to set xen_driver_domain == TRUE come from?
No idea. Was just thinking about it.. but you have convienced me it
is not worth looking at.
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
|
|
| |
|
Home