RE: [Xen-ia64-devel] Time for hybrid virtualization?

[tgingold@xxxxxxx]

Quoting "Xu, Anthony" <anthony.xu@xxxxxxxxx>:

> tgingold@xxxxxxx wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > here are my random thoughts:
> >
> > * First, I am all for supporting dom0 VTi (as well as dom0 PV).  This
> >   should be an intermediate step.  Intel did that in the past,
> >   although I am not sure it was fully virtualized (what about GFW ?)
> Dom0 Vti didn't use GFW, mostly it used native FW, while Xen provide
> some
> Fake information, such as memory map block, and Xen will inject some
> Sal/Pal call.

I am worried with Sal/Pal.  How do you prevent dom0 from making host PAL calls?

> > * Building a dom0 vti means porting backend, balloon and all other
> >   drivers to Vti.
> Dom0 Vti just mean that cpu virtulaization is using VT-i( privileged
> intruction emulation).
> All other should be same.
> We may need to modify backend, ballon and other drivers a little.

If we really want to reduce kernel maintenance, it would be great to be
able to run an unmodified kernel.  But I am maybe going too far!

> > * What about performance on Montecito ?  If Montecito Vti is ~55% of
> >   Montvale, I'd prefer to keep PV.
> KB on Montecito Vti can get 85% of native,
> Roughly calculate,  Montecito Vti is ~95% of Montvale.
> Tukwila Vti should be faster, it adds more VT hardware support.

Ok, thanks.

Tristan.

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