[PATCH] paravirt.h

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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


[Index of Archives]     [KVM Development]     [Libvirt Development]     [Libvirt Users]     [CentOS Virtualization]     [Netdev]     [Ethernet Bridging]     [Linux Wireless]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Forum]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux