Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 05/15] Nested Virtualization: core

[Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 18/08/2010 09:27, "Dong, Eddie" <eddie.dong@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> +enum nestedhvm_vmexits
>> +nestedhvm_vcpu_vmexit(struct vcpu *v, struct cpu_user_regs *regs,
>> +   uint64_t exitcode)
>> +{
> 
> I doubt about the necessary of this kind of wrapper.
> 
> In single layer virtualization, SVM and VMX have its own handler for each VM
> exit. Only when certain common function is invoked, the control goes from
> SVM/VMX to common one, because they have quit many differences and the savings
> by wrapping that function is really small, however we pay with additional
> complexity in both SVM and VMX side as well as readability and performance.
> Further more, it may limit the flexibility to implement something new for both
> side.
> 
> Back to the nested virtualization. I am not fully convinced we need a common
> handler for the VM_entry/exit, at least not for now. It is basically same
> situation with above single layer virtualization. Rather we prefer to jump
> from SVM/VMX to common code when certain common service is requested.
> 
> Will that be easier?

I'm sure there ahs to be conversion-and-demux anyway in SVM-VMX-specific
code. At which point you may as well break out to individual common handler
functions just where that makes sense, as you say. Also I agree this model
fits better with what we do in the non-nested case.

 -- Keir



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