From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark McLoughlin Subject: Re: Vanilla Linux 64-bit paravirt guest support Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 15:49:04 +0100 Message-ID: <1207838944.16779.27.camel@muff> References: <47FAF285.10103@cmu.edu> <47FBE3CF.4000107@goop.org> <47FD942C.5040503@cmu.edu> <47FE1DB6.6050707@goop.org> <1207836684.16779.8.camel@muff> <3883AEC7-3636-4809-8516-8870C1B9C7C4@cmu.edu> Reply-To: Mark McLoughlin Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <3883AEC7-3636-4809-8516-8870C1B9C7C4@cmu.edu> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Michael Abd-El-Malek Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge , xen-devel , Eduardo Habkost List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Thu, 2008-04-10 at 10:32 -0400, Michael Abd-El-Malek wrote: > On Apr 10, 2008, at 10:11 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > > On Thu, 2008-04-10 at 09:01 -0500, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > >> Michael Abd-El-Malek wrote: > >>> Is 64-bit domU support available anywhere at the moment? For > >>> example, > >>> what is the status of the git://git.et.redhat.com/xen-pvops-64.git > >>> tree? I pulled that tree and tried building 64-bit Xen domU support > >>> (since this tree allows you to configure the kernel with that > >>> capability, unlike the vanilla Linux tree). But compilation > >>> failed in > >>> enlighten.c because xen_smp_ops isn't defined in x86_64. > > > > Try building without CONFIG_SMP, it doesn't support that yet. > > Other than SMP support, does the tree represent a fully functional 64- > bit PV domU support? No, it's a work-in-progress - ia32 emulation is also missing and we're tracking down a nasty pagetable pinning bug atm. Even then it would only be on par with 32-bit pv_ops DomU, which itself doesn't yet have all the Xen features of 2.6.18 tree. > Does it also allow all hypercalls? Put another > way: is a 64-bit PV domU from that tree less capable than a 64-bit PV > domU from Xen's linux-2.6.18.8 tree? It depends on how you define "less capable" - e.g. some might think a tree based on a 1.5 year old kernel is less capable even if it does have more xen features ... :-) > >> Redhat have some patches which they're shipping in Fedora 9. Once > >> F9 is > >> out the door, I'm hoping they'll polish them into an upstreamable > >> form. > >> I don't know whether that git tree represents what's in F9, or if > >> that's > >> somewhere else; at the very least I'd expect you'd be able to pull > >> the > >> patches out of the srpm. > > > > Yep, this tree: > > > > http://git.et.redhat.com/?p=xen-pvops-64.git > > > > is the work-in-progress x86_64 tree. > > > > This tree: > > > > http://git.et.redhat.com/?p=linux-2.6-fedora-pvops.git > > > > is what we're actually shipping for F-9. It includes the x86_64 work, > > but some other paravirt_ops patches too, most of which are queued up > > upstream. > > Which tree do you recommend I use? I'd use the xen-pvops-64 tree unless you are specifically wanting to help with Fedora's kernel-xen packages. Cheers, Mark.