Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Fri, 16 Feb 2007, Zachary Amsden wrote: > > >> Yes, but that is just because the Xen hooks happens to be near the last part >> of the merge. VMI required some special hooks, as do both Xen and lhype (I >> think ... Rusty can correct me if lhype's puppy's have precluded the addition >> of new hooks). Xen page table handling is very different, mostly it is trap >> and emulate so writable page tables can work, which means they don't always >> issue hypercalls for PTE updates, although they do have that option, should >> the hypervisor MMU model change, or performance concerns prompt a different >> model (or perhaps, migration?) >> > > Well looks like there are still some major design issues to be ironed out. > What is proposed here is to make paravirt_ops a fake generic > API and then tunnel through it to vendor specific kernel mods. > No, there are two radically different approaches represented in one API. Shadow page tables and direct page tables require different abstractions to make them work. The API is not fake. It accommodates both approaches, and the Xen changes here are pretty much required to make direct page tables work. The shadow side of the equation is not vendor specific, in fact, it is used by lhype to make PTE update hypercalls. But only one vendor chose direct page tables, so it appears vendor specific, when in fact it is just specific to that design choice. Adding XenBus hooks to paravirt-ops, for instance, would be vendor specific and useless to anyone else. But that is not the approach which has been taken here. Zach
