Xen project Mailing List

Re: [Xen-devel] Configuration of nestedhvm

To: "Dong, Eddie" <eddie.dong@xxxxxxxxx>

From: Keir Fraser <keir@xxxxxxx>

Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2010 08:12:04 +0100

Cc: Xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Delivery-date: Fri, 08 Oct 2010 00:13:03 -0700

Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:user-agent:date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id:thread-topic :thread-index:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=T9nQ1fEwiGeLFkpAHaN2MesGNdXhuo+504AWcKZHgkah+8ojj1sAPMmtmYqtSBMs6S xLh9NHX8CXOzpVWNFgXDo53UNX46LZl2zoC7c9vb8WfPFnb3NdgqLaOyFA48q0LXr5wE Yx4F5ApH/3RkPiawRHK1byd8vnfmYlavpn2Mw=

List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>

Thread-index: Actmf7Fhjj9F1X8UQAiSevQQTVQBcAAIcuFwAAWnxlY=

Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] Configuration of nestedhvm

On 08/10/2010 05:34, "Dong, Eddie" <eddie.dong@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Nested virtualization usage model is emerging, however we must guarantee it > won't impact the performance of simple virtualization. > This patch add an boot parameter for nested virtualization, which is disabled > by default for now. What's the point when a per-domain config option is going to be implemented? You can then simply not configure nestedhvm for a domain you want to test without that capability? I suppose it makes your second patch make a bit more sense than it would in total isolation. I think patch#2 probably makes sense, but it should wait for the patch that actually implements the per-domain config option, and properly implements is_nestedhvm(), before going in. -- Keir _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

©2013 Xen Project, A Linux Foundation Collaborative Project. All Rights Reserved.
Linux Foundation is a registered trademark of The Linux Foundation.
Xen Project is a trademark of The Linux Foundation.