Re: [Xen-devel] RFC: [0/2] Remove netloop by lazy copying in netback

[Keir Fraser <keir@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 27/3/07 10:20, "Herbert Xu" <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> That's not quite how Jose's patch works. The lazy mapping is done by the
>> guest in his patch.
> 
> That would mean the breaking of large pages on ia64 or any other
> platform that uses them.  Is there any benefit for not doing it
> in the hypervisor?

Yet another bloody grant-table hypercall! Also there's the question of where
this lazy state gets squirrelled away until the demand mapping occurs.
Perhaps the p2m is usable in this case, since I expect we have plenty of
spare bits for a not-present entry... But anyway, we don't have the luxury
of a p2m to stick things in the x86 case.

>> If we're not going to go as far as supporting guest-visible 'p2m faults'
>> then I think overall your original patch is probably the best approach so
>> far. If I view the new hypercall as a special case of the existing unmap
>> (which is an unmap-to-zero-pte special case) then it's not so bad. At least
>> there should be very little new code in the hypervisor needed to implement
>> it. We have a little while longer to think about this since the patches
>> aren't for 3.0.5.
> 
> OK.  How do you want to proceed from here then?

I'll take a closer look at your original patch. Having viewed the
alternatives I don't hate it so much now. :-)

 -- Keir


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