Chris Wright wrote:
> * Jeremy Fitzhardinge (jeremy@xxxxxxxx) wrote:
>
>> Chris Wright wrote:
>>
>>> I agree with that, but I think that's esp. for things like create and launch
>>> new vcpu. The IPI bit I'm not as clear on, nor running this all on native
>>> as well.
>>>
>>>
>> Well, native would fall back to using the existing arch/i386 versions of
>> those functions, so that's reasonably straightforward.
>>
>
> It's the fact that we need to leave code in the kernel to run on native,
> but also do something dynamically with that same code when running
> paravirt that I'm referring to.
Why would it be any different to all the other code we've got behind
native pvops?
The ideal simplified case is that we rename
smp_send_stop/send_reschedule/prepare_cpus/etc to native_* versions. In
the !PARAVIRT case we just call the native_* version directly; in
PARAVIRT we call via the native pv_ops structure. Under Xen, all these
would implemented independently from the native versions.
> No, it's not the IPI itself, it's the way it's often accessed by the rest of
> the kernel (which is intertwined with genapic). I'm happy to avoid apic
> altogether since it's effectively worthless for Xen other than
> integrating into the existing infrastructure.
>
I guess by "rest of the kernel" you mean other stuff in arch/i386. Yes,
that's a concern, but maybe we can tease it apart in a sensible way.
J
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
