Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5 4/9] xen: introduce XEN_DOMCTL_devour

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 13.01.15 at 17:17, <vkuznets@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> An alternative approach to this might be to walk the guest p2m (with
>> appropriate continuations) and move each domheap page (this would also
>> help us preserve super page mappings). It would also have the advantage
>> of not needing additional stages in the destroy path and state in struct
>> domain etc, since all the action would be constrained to the one
>> hypercall.
> 
> Something like that (but not exactly) was in my RFC/WIPv2 series:
> http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2014-09/msg03624.html 
> 
> The drawback of such approach is the necessity of copying all mapped
> more than once pages (granted pages, qemu-mapped pages, ...) or at least
> providing blank pages instead of them. 

Why would that be necessary only in that alternative model? What
gets done with pages used by other than _just_ the dying domain
shouldn't depend on how the MFN/GFN relationship gets determined.

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel