RE: [Xen-ia64-devel] paravirt_ops and its alternatives

["Yang, Fred" <fred.yang@xxxxxxxxx>]

Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-02-04 at 09:53 +0800, Dong, Eddie wrote:
>> Yang, Fred wrote:
>>> Dong, Eddie wrote:
>>>> Re-post it to warmup discussion in case people can't read PPT
>>>> format, 
>>> 
>>> IVT is very performance sensitive for the native Linux, how about
>>> dual IVT tables alternative for CPU virtualization?  It would need
>>> maintainance effort but it would be much cleaner forIA64 situation.
>>> -Fred
>> 
>> Dual IVT table could be a night mare for Tony, I guess. But yes we
>> need to have more active discussion to kick it off.
> 
>    Yes, two separate IVTs with 95+% of the code being the same would
> not be ideal.  I think we should aim for a single ivt.S that gets
> compiled a couple times with different options, once for native and
> again for each virtualization option.  It looks like more than half
> of the changes in xenivt.S could be easily converted to macros that
> could be switched by compile options.  Perhaps a pattern will emerge
> for the rest. 
If it is not necessarily to stick with a single image and runtime to
determine code path, multi-compile paths to generate different PV or
native image then macros can possibly work..
-Fred

_______________________________________________
Xen-ia64-devel mailing list
Xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ia64-devel