RE: [Xen-ia64-devel] RE: [Xen-devel] [BUNDLE] Testing a simplerinter-domain transport

["Nakajima, Jun" <jun.nakajima@xxxxxxxxx>]

Yang, Fred wrote:
> Dan,
> 
>> From Xen summit, isn't it to be more P2M liked approach due to
> consideration on driver domain and domain0 needs to get P2M for
> VBD/VNIF?
> 
> Don't remember there is decision on taking Hypercall only approach and
> dropped P2M table lookup.  Any justification here?

To me having an array like x86 xenlinux is much simpler. Since IA-64
Linux uses bigger pages, the size of such a table should be much
smaller.

Jun
 
> 
> -Fred
> 
> Magenheimer, Dan (HP Labs Fort Collins) wrote:
>> (I'm sure you meant PPC *and* ia64 ;*)
>> 
>> On just a quick skim, one thing to note:
>> 
>> IIRC from the summit, domain0 and driver domains for
>> neither PPC nor ia64 will have a p2m lookup table so
>> a p2m translation will require a hypercall. So
>> while virt_to_machine is cheap for domains on x86,
>> it is not on PPC and ia64.  If HYPERVISOR_share can
>> take physical addresses instead of machine addresses
>> (with Xen doing the phys_to_machine part of the
>> translation), I think the code would work better
>> for PPC and ia64, as well as better hide the
>> virtual->physical->machine memory abstraction.
>> 
>> Dan
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Xen-devel mailing list
>> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-ia64-devel mailing list
> Xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ia64-devel



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