Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] [VTD] Separate VT-d page table from P2M table

[Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

What are the tradeoffs? One obvious tradeoff is that separate tables doubles
the memory overhead. What are the advantages of separate tables? I believe
currently we share the pagetables (right?). If so, why would we even
consider moving to separate tables?

 -- Keir

On 22/4/08 10:34, "Han, Weidong" <weidong.han@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Separate VT-d page table is by default. Shared VT-d page table may be
> easy and good in some cases. So we let them co-exist now. If shared VT-d
> page table is not necessary and useless, we can remove it easily in
> future.
> 
> Randy (weidong)
> 
> Keir Fraser wrote:
>> On 22/4/08 09:36, "Han, Weidong" <weidong.han@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 
>>> Currently VT-d page table shares with P2M table, this patch supports
>>> separate VT-d page table. 1) add an option (vtd_share) to control
>>> whether VT-d page table shares with P2M table or not.
>> 
>> Why? Is this just another option that noone will understand.
>> 
>>  -- Keir
> 



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel