RE: [Xen-ia64-devel] paravirt_ops and its alternatives

[Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@xxxxxx>]

On Mon, 2008-02-04 at 09:53 +0800, Dong, Eddie wrote:
> Yang, Fred wrote:
> > Dong, Eddie wrote:
> >> Re-post it to warmup discussion in case people can't read PPT format,
> > 
> > IVT is very performance sensitive for the native Linux, how about
> > dual IVT tables alternative for CPU virtualization?  It would need
> > maintainance effort but it would be much cleaner forIA64 situation.
> > -Fred  
> 
> Dual IVT table could be a night mare for Tony, I guess. But yes we
> need to have more active discussion to kick it off.

   Yes, two separate IVTs with 95+% of the code being the same would not
be ideal.  I think we should aim for a single ivt.S that gets compiled a
couple times with different options, once for native and again for each
virtualization option.  It looks like more than half of the changes in
xenivt.S could be easily converted to macros that could be switched by
compile options.  Perhaps a pattern will emerge for the rest.

        Alex

-- 
Alex Williamson                             HP Open Source & Linux Org.


_______________________________________________
Xen-ia64-devel mailing list
Xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ia64-devel