[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <45F06989.8030207@goop.org>
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 11:52:41 -0800
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>
CC: Daniel Arai <arai@...are.com>,
Virtualization Mailing List <virtualization@...ts.osdl.org>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
tglx@...utronix.de, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: + stupid-hack-to-make-mainline-build.patch added to -mm tree
Chris Wright wrote:
> I agree with that, but I think that's esp. for things like create and launch
> new vcpu. The IPI bit I'm not as clear on, nor running this all on native
> as well.
>
Well, native would fall back to using the existing arch/i386 versions of
those functions, so that's reasonably straightforward. There'll need to
be a bit of internal rearrangement so that the Xen code can call in to
do things like set up the pda/gdt and other bits of CPU state.
I don't think IPI is especially interesting in itself, is it? It's a
necessary mechanism to implement smp_call_function(), but Xen can do IPI
without having to invoke any of the existing apic-based IPI code. The
other main user of IPI is cross-cpu tlb shootdown, but Xen has much more
efficient mechanisms than IPI for that (so we'll need to make the tlb
pv_ops interface a little wider to pass down a cpuset).
J
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists