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: "Dong, Eddie" <eddie.dong@xxxxxxxxx>, "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: Tristan Gingold <Tristan.Gingold@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 11:06:00 +0200
Delivery-date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 08:00:38 +0000
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <37FBBA5F3A361C41AB7CE44558C3448E0588487A@pdsmsx403>
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>
References: <37FBBA5F3A361C41AB7CE44558C3448E0588487A@pdsmsx403>
Sender: xen-ia64-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: KMail/1.5
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).

>       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>