WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

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/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-ia64-devel

RE: Transparent paravirtualization vs. xen paravirtualization (was:RE: [

To: "Tristan Gingold" <Tristan.Gingold@xxxxxxxx>, "Magenheimer, Dan \(HP Labs Fort Collins\)" <dan.magenheimer@xxxxxx>, <xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: Transparent paravirtualization vs. xen paravirtualization (was:RE: [Xen-ia64-devel] IRQ management)
From: "Dong, Eddie" <eddie.dong@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 08:55:21 +0800
Delivery-date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 00:53:17 +0000
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
List-help: <mailto:xen-ia64-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Discussion of the ia64 port of Xen <xen-ia64-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-ia64-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-ia64-devel>, <mailto:xen-ia64-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-ia64-devel>, <mailto:xen-ia64-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: xen-ia64-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: AcXZOp796DRvjoa4Quuc0MiGEhv36AAi6iuw
Thread-topic: Transparent paravirtualization vs. xen paravirtualization (was:RE: [Xen-ia64-devel] IRQ management)
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

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