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-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [GIT PULL] Xen APIC hooks (with io_apic_ops)

To: Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [GIT PULL] Xen APIC hooks (with io_apic_ops)
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 02:13:50 +0200
Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx>, Xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@xxxxxxxxxx>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Avi Kivity <avi@xxxxxxxxxx>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Wed, 27 May 2009 17:15:10 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <162f4c90-6431-4a2a-b337-6d7451d7b11e@default>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <4A1C3453.6080402@xxxxxxxxxx> <162f4c90-6431-4a2a-b337-6d7451d7b11e@default>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
* Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > The Linux scheduler already supports multiple scheduling 
> > classes.  If we find that none of them will fit our needs, we'll 
> > propose a new one.  When the need can be demonstrated to be 
> > real, and the implementation can be clean, Linux can usually be 
> > adapted.
> 
> But that's exactly George and Jeremy's point.  KVM will eventually 
> require changes that clutter Linux for purposes that are relevant 
> only to a hypervisor.

That's wrong. Any such scheduler classes would also help: control 
groups, containers, vserver, UML and who knows what other isolation 
project. Many of such mechanisms are already implemented as well.

I rarely see any KVM-only feature in generic kernel code, and that's 
good.

Xen changes - especially dom0 - are overwhelmingly not about 
improving Linux, but about having some special hook and extra 
treatment in random places - and that's really bad.

I also find it pretty telling that you cut out the most important 
point of Avi's reply:

> > I think the Xen design has merit if it can truly make dom0 a 
> > guest -- that is, if it can survive dom0 failure.  Until then, 
> > you're just taking a large interdependent codebase and splitting 
> > it at some random point, but you don't get any stability or 
> > security in return.

that crucial question really has to be answered honestly and 
upfront.

        Ingo

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

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