|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
xen-ia64-devel
RE: Transparent paravirtualization vs. xen paravirtualization (was:RE: [
Tristan:
Another thing like IOAPCI as Kevin pointed out is a must to be in HV as
driver domain in future must have this feature. PMT is painful and urgent stuff
too.
See my comments embedded too.
Eddie
Tristan Gingold wrote:
> 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).
Just make sure you are aware this one is dependent on virtual TLB stuff. I.e a
vTLB for MMIO (PIB) can never go into VHPT. Same for other IOs like IOAPIC.
>
>> 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
|
|
|
|
|