Re: [PATCH] Refactor hypercall infrastructure

[Anthony Liguori <aliguori-r/Jw6+rmf7HQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>]

Zachary Amsden wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-09-14 at 16:44 -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>
>   
>> So then each module creates a hypercall page using this magic MSR and 
>> the hypervisor has to keep track of it so that it can appropriately 
>> change the page on migration.  The page can only contain a single 
>> instruction or else it cannot be easily changed (or you have to be able 
>> to prevent the guest from being migrated while in the hypercall page).
>>
>> We're really talking about identical models.  Instead of an MSR, the #GP 
>> is what tells the hypervisor to update the instruction.  The nice thing 
>> about this is that you don't have to keep track of all the current 
>> hypercall page locations in the hypervisor.
>>     
>
> I agree, multiple hypercall pages is insane.  I was thinking more of a
> single hypercall page, fixed in place by the hypervisor, not the kernel.
>
> Then each module can read an MSR saying what VA the hypercall page is
> at, and the hypervisor can simply flip one page to switch architectures.
>   

That requires a memory hole though.  In KVM, we don't have a memory hole.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

> Zach
>
>   


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/