Re: [Xen-devel] RFC: xen config changes v4

[Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx>]

On 02/26/2015 06:42 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Feb 2015, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 11:08:20AM +0000, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > On Thu, 26 Feb 2015, David Vrabel wrote:
> > > > On 26/02/15 04:59, Juergen Gross wrote:
> > > > > So we are again in the situation that pv-drivers always imply the pvops
> > > > > kernel (PARAVIRT selected). I started the whole Kconfig rework to
> > > > > eliminate this dependency.
> > > > Yes.  Can you produce a series that just addresses this one issue.
> > > >
> > > > In the absence of any concrete requirement for this big Kconfig reorg I
> > > > I don't think it is helpful.
> > > I clearly missed some context as I didn't realize that this was the
> > > intended goal. Why do we want this? Please explain as it won't come
> > > for free.
> > >
> > >
> > > We have a few PV interfaces for HVM guests that need PARAVIRT in Linux
> > > in order to be used, for example pv_time_ops and HVMOP_pagetable_dying.
> > > They are critical performance improvements and from the interface
> > > perspective, small enough that doesn't make much sense having a separate
> > > KConfig option for them.
> > >
> > >
> > > In order to reach the goal above we necessarily need to introduce a
> > > differentiation in terms of PV on HVM guests in Linux:
> > >
> > > 1) basic guests with PV network, disk, etc but no PV timers, no
> > >     HVMOP_pagetable_dying, no PV IPIs
> > > 2) full PV on HVM guests that have PV network, disk, timers,
> > >     HVMOP_pagetable_dying, PV IPIs and anything else that makes sense.
> > >
> > > 2) is much faster than 1) on Xen and 2) is only a tiny bit slower than
> > > 1) on native x86
> > Also don't we shove 2) down hvm guests right now? Even when everything is
> > built in I do not see how we opt out for HVM for 1) at run time right now.
> >
> > If this is true then the question of motivation for this becomes even
> > stronger I think.
> Yes, indeed there is no way to do 1) at the moment. And for good
> reasons, see above.
Hmm, after checking the code I'm not convinced:

- HVMOP_pagetable_dying is obsolete on modern hardware supporting
  EPT/HAP

- PV IPIs are not needed on single-vcpu guests

- PARAVIRT_CLOCK doesn't need PARAVIRT (in fact the SUSEs kernel configs
  for all x86_64 kernels have CONFIG_PARAVIRT_CLOCK=y)

So I think we really should enable building Xen frontends without
PARAVIRT, implying at least no XEN_PV and no XEN_PVH.

I'll have a try setting up patches.


Juergen

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