Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 17 May 2009 12:33:24 -0700 | From | Arjan van de Ven <> | Subject | Re: Where do we stand with the Xen patches? |
| |
On Sun, 17 May 2009 12:25:38 -0700 (PDT) david@lang.hm wrote:
> On Sun, 17 May 2009, devzero@web.de wrote: > > maybe this is iust a stupid comment (please forgive, i?m no > > advanced kernel hacker), but can?t the code inserted by the patches > > and which changes the fastpath just #IFDEF`ed at the critical > > offsets ? (as building a dom0 kernel is just another build target, > > isn`t it ?) > > no, if dom0 is going to be widely deployed, it will be because the > distros turn on dom0 support by default. as a result any penalties > due to xen support will be felt by all users of those distros (even > if they don't use xen) >
at minimum we need to split CONFIG_PARAVIRT up into "want to be nice to hypervisors" and "I want to be Xen Dom0"; they look to largely not overlap.... so lets not make the costs overlap either.
-- Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre For development, discussion and tips for power savings, visit http://www.lesswatts.org
| |