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/
Home Products Support Community News


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

Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-02-04 at 09:53 +0800, Dong, Eddie wrote:
>> Yang, Fred wrote:
>>> Dong, Eddie wrote:
>>>> Re-post it to warmup discussion in case people can't read PPT
>>>> format, 
>>> IVT is very performance sensitive for the native Linux, how about
>>> dual IVT tables alternative for CPU virtualization?  It would need
>>> maintainance effort but it would be much cleaner forIA64 situation.
>>> -Fred
>> Dual IVT table could be a night mare for Tony, I guess. But yes we
>> need to have more active discussion to kick it off.
>    Yes, two separate IVTs with 95+% of the code being the same would
> not be ideal.  I think we should aim for a single ivt.S that gets
> compiled a couple times with different options, once for native and
> again for each virtualization option.  It looks like more than half
> of the changes in xenivt.S could be easily converted to macros that
> could be switched by compile options.  Perhaps a pattern will emerge
> for the rest. 
If it is not necessarily to stick with a single image and runtime to
determine code path, multi-compile paths to generate different PV or
native image then macros can possibly work..

Xen-ia64-devel mailing list