From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1767661AbXCIXjI (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Mar 2007 18:39:08 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1767627AbXCIXjH (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Mar 2007 18:39:07 -0500 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:36438 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1767663AbXCIXjF (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Mar 2007 18:39:05 -0500 Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 00:38:28 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Cc: Chris Wright , Linus Torvalds , Zachary Amsden , Thomas Gleixner , john stultz , akpm@linux-foundation.org, LKML , Rusty Russell , Andi Kleen , Alan Cox Subject: Re: ABI coupling to hypervisors via CONFIG_PARAVIRT Message-ID: <20070309233828.GA5566@elte.hu> References: <20070309180230.GA17988@elte.hu> <20070309192420.GA27747@elte.hu> <20070309210430.GA14905@elte.hu> <20070309212714.GU10574@sequoia.sous-sol.org> <20070309214704.GA20988@elte.hu> <20070309221046.GV10574@sequoia.sous-sol.org> <20070309222435.GB24341@elte.hu> <45F1E160.1090608@goop.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <45F1E160.1090608@goop.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -2.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-2.0 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.0.3 -2.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > The important part is that there's more to the story than just pv_ops. > If you wanted to make such a change, then you'd need to refactor the > i386 support code to add a vma->paging helper layer. That layer would > be available for any pv_ops interface to use if it wishes. no such change is needed to native. [ other than the removal of tons of lowlevel hooks ;-) ] Think of this in terms of a completely separate MM layer for guest kernels, with all memory management details done on the hypervisor side, ok? I dont think you can emulate that in an equivalent way via VMI, the kernel object in this model is on the hypervisor side - while with VMI that does not look possible. Ingo