From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tim Deegan Subject: Re: [Hackathon minutes] PV network improvements Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 10:52:09 +0100 Message-ID: <20130522095209.GC26203@ocelot.phlegethon.org> References: <20130520183118.GH32007@zion.uk.xensource.com> <20130521092600.GF9626@ocelot.phlegethon.org> <20130521134207.GA13181@ocelot.phlegethon.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Stefano Stabellini Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, Wei Liu List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org At 17:58 +0100 on 21 May (1369159125), Stefano Stabellini wrote: > On Tue, 21 May 2013, Tim Deegan wrote: > > At 11:51 +0100 on 21 May (1369137063), Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > > Obviously in an ideal world we would be able to offer both at the same > > > time, and maybe George's proposal is exactly what is going to achieve > > > that. But I was describing the case that requires us to make a choice. > > > > Righto. I don't think we need to worry about that yet. You're all > > smart engineers, and I've heard a bunch of good ideas flying around that > > address the costs of mapping and unmapping in backends. > > Right. I would consider the performance of "backend with all the memory > mapped" as the limit we should try to achieve even without having all > the memory mapped. Yes, absolutely. > But if it turns out that we are very far from it, we > might want to consider allowing it as an option in the meantime. Understood, and I still strongly disagree. Tim.