From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sheng Yang Subject: Re: [PATCH][v3] PV featured HVM(hybrid) support in Xen Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 16:31:33 +0800 Message-ID: <201002081631.33727.sheng@linux.intel.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Keir Fraser Cc: Ian Campbell , Tim Deegan , xen-devel List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Monday 08 February 2010 16:12:54 Keir Fraser wrote: > On 08/02/2010 08:05, "Yang, Sheng" wrote: > > Hi Keir > > > > Here is the latest (hybrid) patchset. > > > > Change from v2: > > > > 1. Change the name "hybrid" to "PV featured HVM", as well as flag and > > macro names. > > 2. Merge the hypercall page with HVM. > > 3. Clean up VIRQ delivery mechanism, fixing the lock issue. > > 4. Remove the reserved the region in E820(but another issue remains, I > > can't get location of grant table elegantly, as I described in Linux part > > patches) > > > > Please review, thanks! > > Why can't you leave LAPIC available for things like INIT-SIPI-SIPI, and > simply not use it for things you need higher perf for? I am not quite understand why we need to stick to INIT-SIPI-SIPI. For the physical cpus, we can't tell their state directly, so we need a protocol, like INIT-SIPI-SIPI; but for virtual cpus, we have hypercall as our protocol, so we can easily tell them when and where to start, which is much more directly like PV domU did. -- regards Yang, Sheng