RE: [Xen-devel] Regarding page table management changes from Xen v1to Xen v2 (and v3)

["Ian Pratt" <m+Ian.Pratt@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> > On 64b we could use the 1:1 mapping of all physmem that Xen has. 
> > Obviously that is infeasible on 32b. In fact the interface 
> (passing a 
> > virtual address) pretty much means we have to use a linear 
> mapping in 
> > both cases.
> 
> Couldn't we temporarily map the page table page?  Not that we 
> would actually want to do that.  Just trying to confirm my understand.

Sure, but that's expensive on 32b as map_domain_mem has to do real work
(it's cheap on 64b as we have a 1-to-1 map of machine memory).

Ian

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