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

[Anthony Liguori <aliguori@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Ian Pratt wrote:
> > > 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).
>   
Excellent, that's just what I thought.

Thanks Ian!

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

> Ian
>   

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