[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070309233828.GA5566@elte.hu>
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 00:38:28 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc: Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: ABI coupling to hypervisors via CONFIG_PARAVIRT
* Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org> wrote:
> The important part is that there's more to the story than just pv_ops.
> If you wanted to make such a change, then you'd need to refactor the
> i386 support code to add a vma->paging helper layer. That layer would
> be available for any pv_ops interface to use if it wishes.
no such change is needed to native. [ other than the removal of tons of
lowlevel hooks ;-) ] Think of this in terms of a completely separate MM
layer for guest kernels, with all memory management details done on the
hypervisor side, ok? I dont think you can emulate that in an equivalent
way via VMI, the kernel object in this model is on the hypervisor side -
while with VMI that does not look possible.
Ingo
-
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