Re: [patch 00/21] Xen-paravirt: Xen guest implementation for paravirt_opsinterface

From: Zachary Amsden
Date: Fri Feb 16 2007 - 16:50:51 EST

Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007, Zachary Amsden wrote:

For the most part, it doesn't disturb VMware or KVM. Xen does need some
additional functionality in paravirt-ops because they took a different design
choice - direct page tables instead of shadow page tables. This is where all
the requirements for the new Xen paravirt-ops hooks come from.

It still seems to be implemented for Xen and not to support a variety of page table methods in paravirt ops.

Yes, but that is just because the Xen hooks happens to be near the last part of the merge. VMI required some special hooks, as do both Xen and lhype (I think ... Rusty can correct me if lhype's puppy's have precluded the addition of new hooks). Xen page table handling is very different, mostly it is trap and emulate so writable page tables can work, which means they don't always issue hypercalls for PTE updates, although they do have that option, should the hypervisor MMU model change, or performance concerns prompt a different model (or perhaps, migration?)

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at