Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 22 Aug 2006 12:17:30 -0700 | From | Zachary Amsden <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] paravirt.h |
| |
Alan Cox wrote: > > - Stacked hypervisors stomping each others functions >
Possibly an issue, but why would you ever want stacked paravirt-ops? You're only talking to the hypervisor directly above you, and there is only one of those.
> - Locking required to do updates: and remember our lock functions use > methods in the array >
Yes, locking is an issue, but it is possible to do. You just need to stop interrupts, NMIs, and faults on all processors simultaneously. Actually, it's not that scary - since you'll be doing it in a hypervisor.
> - If we boot patch inline code to get performance natively its almost > impossible to then revert that. >
You can patch back over it. I've already implemented the locking and repatching bits for VMI.
Zach - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |