[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: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 00:37:58 +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 18:03:20 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
On Thursday 23 March 2006 00:54, Zachary Amsden wrote:
> Andi Kleen wrote:
> > 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.
> There are no changes required to the kernel entry / exit paths. With
> save/restore segment support in the VMI, reserving one segment for the
> hypervisor data area is easy.
Ok that might work yes.
> > Still might be the best option.
> > How did that rumoured Xenolinux-over-VMI implementation solve that problem?
> !CONFIG_SMP -- as I believe I saw in the latest Xen patches sent out as
Ah, cheating. This means the rumoured benchmark numbers are dubious too I guess.
Xen-devel mailing list