lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Aug]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-08-22 21:21    [W:0.068 / U:1.076 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site