[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <C6D79444.14F51%keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 07:22:44 +0100
From: Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@...citrix.com>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
Sheng Yang <sheng@...ux.intel.com>
CC: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <Jeremy.Fitzhardinge@...rix.com>,
xen-devel <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
Eddie Dong <eddie.dong@...el.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jun Nakajima <jun.nakajima@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC][PATCH 03/10] xen/hybrid: Xen Hybrid Extension
initialization
On 16/09/2009 21:24, "Jeremy Fitzhardinge" <jeremy@...p.org> wrote:
>> Guest would detect Hybrid capability using CPUID 0x40000002.edx, then call
>> HVMOP_enable_hybrid hypercall to enable hybrid support in hypervisor.
>>
>
> I think having an option to put PV guests into an HVM container is a
> good one, but as I mentioned in the other mail, I don't think this is
> the right approach.
>
> It would be much better to make it so that an unmodified guest works in
> such a mode; even with no specific optimisations the guest would get
> benefit from faster kernel<->usermode switches.
By unmodified you mean ordinary PV guest? It's an interesting comparison --
PVing an HVM guest, versus HVMing (to some extent) a PV guest.
-- Keir
> Then we can add specific optimisations to take advantage of, say,
> running in ring 0 (=fast syscalls) and having access to HAP hardware
> (=direct pagetable updates, no pinning).
--
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