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

To: "Yang, Fred" <fred.yang@xxxxxxxxx>, "Magenheimer, Dan \(HP Labs Fort Collins\)" <dan.magenheimer@xxxxxx>, <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [Xen-ia64-devel] RE: [Xen-devel] [BUNDLE] Testing a simplerinter-domain transport
From: "Nakajima, Jun" <jun.nakajima@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 13:19:26 -0800
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xen-ia64-devel <xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 21:30:18 +0000
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: AcYrACLAC44DyOH2SMyhzX4zn+iQvQAVcqRQAAFpVvAAAbecsA==
Thread-topic: [Xen-ia64-devel] RE: [Xen-devel] [BUNDLE] Testing a simplerinter-domain transport
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

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