[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86: Control CR0 TS behavior using dev_na_ts_allowed
>>> On 17.03.14 at 15:18, George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 03/17/2014 02:05 PM, George Dunlap wrote: >> On 03/17/2014 01:35 PM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>> On 17.03.14 at 13:42, George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>> wrote: >>>> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 17.03.14 at 04:30, Sarah Newman <srn@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> Not being convinced at all that this is the right approach (in >>>>> particular it remains unclear how an affected guest should deal with >>>>> running on a hypervisor not supporting the new interface) >>>> It looks like the intention of this patch was that if the dom0 >>>> administrator enables the new option, then it will be on by default, >>>> *but* the guest can disable the new behavior. That way, if an admin >>>> knows that she's running all PVOPS kernels (no "classic Xen" kernels), >>>> she can enable it system-wide. Older PVOPS kernels will behave >>>> correctly (but a bit slowly), and newer PVOPS kernels will switch to >>>> the PVABI behavior and reap the performance benefit. >>>> >>>> Newer PVOPS kernels running on older hypervisors will simply use the >>>> PVABI behavior. >>> But if that works correctly, then there's no hypervisor/tools >>> change needed in the first place. >> >> Yes, there's still a need to run *old* PVOPS kernels on *new* >> hypervisors. That (as I understand it) is the point of this patch. > > So we have old hypervisors, new hypervisors with this disabled, and new > hypervisors with this enabled. New hypervisors with this disabled > behave just like old hypervisors. And we have old pvops kernels, new > pvops kernels, and "classic Xen" kernels. And we have "correctness" and > "performance". Then we have the following combinations: > > * Old hypervisor / New hypervisor w/ mode disabled: > - Old hypervisor, classic kernel: correct and fast. > - Old hypervisor, old pvops kernel: fast but buggy. > - Old hypervisor, new pvops kernel: correct and fast. If it's really that way, then again - what's the point of making a hypervisor change when the kernel alone can deal with it in its entirety? > * New hypervisor (w/ mode enabled): > - classic kernel: broken (since it's expecting PVABI TS behavior) > - old pvops: correct but slow > - new pvops kernel: correct and fast (since it will opt-in to the > faster PVABI) > > Is there a way for Xen to tell if it's running a "classic Xen" port > (which expects PVABI TS behavior), or a pvops kernel (which will either > expect "hardware" TS behavior, or will know how to opt-in to PVABI TS > behavior)? That would relieve the admin of trying to figure out for > each guest whether he had a classic or a pvops kernel. I think Xen should conceptually not try to guess things like this, even more so that you're leaving out of the discussion other (perhaps non-Linux) PV kernels. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |