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

["Dong, Eddie" <eddie.dong@xxxxxxxxx>]

Kouya Shimura wrote:
> Dong, Eddie writes:
>>      3: irq chip paravirt_ops, xen irq chip or vSAPIC?
> 
> Is xen irqchip really necessary?

X86 side already pushed the xen irq chip into upstream, so I think
it should be easy to do same thing in IPF side.

> 
> In current PV implementation, an evtchn interrupt is injected and
> reflected directly to a guest OS. 
> See reflect_event()@xen-unstable.hg/xen/arch/ia64/xen/faults.c and
> xen_event_callback@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/arch/ia64/xen/xenivt.c 
> 

Yes, this is xen irq chip. It should have better performance than
vSAPIC.
We need to re-do this base on upstream xen riq chip code, + debug, it is
more than vSAPIC, but love to see going in this direction since x86
already
pushed it.

> There is no intermediate layer there.
> I think that the same mechanism can work in paravirt_ops.
> 
> Perhaps I might misunderstand something. :-)
> 

Just term difference :) basically we are talking about same thing.

thx, eddie

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