[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Xen-devel] Re: [RFC, PATCH 1/24] i386 Vmi documentation II
- To: Zachary Amsden <zach@xxxxxxxxxx>
- From: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 23:38:42 +0100
- Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxx>, Joshua LeVasseur <jtl@xxxxxxxxxx>, Xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Pratap Subrahmanyam <pratap@xxxxxxxxxx>, Wim Coekaerts <wim.coekaerts@xxxxxxxxxx>, Chris Wright <chrisw@xxxxxxxx>, Jack Lo <jlo@xxxxxxxxxx>, Dan Hecht <dhecht@xxxxxxxxxx>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>, Christopher Li <chrisl@xxxxxxxxxx>, virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxx>, Anne Holler <anne@xxxxxxxxxx>, Jyothy Reddy <jreddy@xxxxxxxxxx>, Kip Macy <kmacy@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Ky Srinivasan <ksrinivasan@xxxxxxxxxx>, Leendert van Doorn <leendert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Dan Arai <arai@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 17:59:41 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
On Wednesday 22 March 2006 23:45, Zachary Amsden wrote:
> I propose an entirely different approach - use segmentation.
That would require a lot of changes to save/restore the segmentation
register at kernel entry/exit since there is no swapgs on i386.
And will be likely slower there too and also even slow down the
VMI-kernel-no-hypervisor.
Still might be the best option.
How did that rumoured Xenolinux-over-VMI implementation solve that problem?
-Andi
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel