On Thursday 23 March 2006 00:54, Zachary Amsden wrote: > Andi Kleen wrote: > > On Wednesday 22 March 2006 23:45, Zachary Amsden wrote: > > > > > >> I propose an entirely different approach - use segmentation. > >> > > > > That would require a lot of changes to save/restore the segmentation > > register at kernel entry/exit since there is no swapgs on i386. > > And will be likely slower there too and also even slow down the > > VMI-kernel-no-hypervisor. > > > > There are no changes required to the kernel entry / exit paths. With > save/restore segment support in the VMI, reserving one segment for the > hypervisor data area is easy. Ok that might work yes. > > Still might be the best option. > > > > How did that rumoured Xenolinux-over-VMI implementation solve that problem? > > > > !CONFIG_SMP -- as I believe I saw in the latest Xen patches sent out as > well? Ah, cheating. This means the rumoured benchmark numbers are dubious too I guess. -Andi
