Re: [Xen-devel] [BUNDLE] Testing a simpler inter-domain transport

[Rusty Russell <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 2006-02-06 at 12:01 -0800, Magenheimer, Dan (HP Labs Fort
Collins) wrote:
> > Thanks, just fiddling.  It'll be interesting to see what 
> > changes the PPC
> > guys will need for this.
> > 
> > Cheers!
> > Rusty.
> 
> (I'm sure you meant PPC *and* ia64 ;*)

Of course!

> On just a quick skim, one thing to note:
> 
> IIRC from the summit, domain0 and driver domains for
> neither PPC nor ia64 will have a p2m lookup table so
> a p2m translation will require a hypercall. So
> while virt_to_machine is cheap for domains on x86,
> it is not on PPC and ia64.  If HYPERVISOR_share can
> take physical addresses instead of machine addresses
> (with Xen doing the phys_to_machine part of the
> translation), I think the code would work better
> for PPC and ia64, as well as better hide the
> virtual->physical->machine memory abstraction.

First person to implement this on a different arch wins.  I'm currently
sewing in feedback and cleanups from Hollis for PPC requirements.

Now, I think that the virt_to_machine is fugly too.  I'd prefer to keep
all archs the same though.  Ideally, the hypercall would pass virtual
addresses and the hypervisor would figure out the machine address.  If
you want to figure out how to do that on x86, I'll gladly use it...

Rusty.
-- 
 ccontrol: http://ozlabs.org/~rusty/ccontrol


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