From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: tgh Subject: Re: question about the meaning of memory auto-translate and paravirtual and no pseudophysical overlay Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 08:50:08 +0800 Message-ID: <461D8240.20405@ncic.ac.cn> References: <991B62EB36934C4EBD5B605518A724764C421E@pdsmsx404.ccr.corp.intel.com> <1175962992.12465.11.camel@trevor> <461A38A4.80208@ncic.ac.cn> <200704112228.45793.mark.williamson@cl.cam.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=GB2312 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <200704112228.45793.mark.williamson@cl.cam.ac.uk> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Mark Williamson Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org hi Thank you for your reply Mark Williamson =D0=B4=B5=C0: >> if there is no pseudophysical addresses,a physical host computer could >> only paravirtualise one VM,is it right? >> =20 > > No, AFAIK pseudophysical addresses are mostly there for the convenience= of the=20 > guest. Xen has some support for them so that guests can use them more=20 > efficiently but that's not strictly necessary. In principle, they coul= d be=20 > eliminated from Xen entirely (would require modifying the PV guests to = manage=20 > the pseudophys abstraction themselves). > =20 Is there this kind paravirtual os for xen at present? or in future,will this kind paravirtual os come out? and what is the advantages for this kind of os? Thanks in advance