Re: [RFH]: AMD CR intercept for lmsw/clts

[Mukesh Rathor <mukesh.rathor@oracle.com>]

On Tue, 05 Aug 2014 14:00:25 +0100
Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> wrote:

> On 05/08/2014 13:11, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>>> On 05.08.14 at 13:16, <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> wrote:
> >> On 05/08/2014 08:46, Jan Beulich wrote:
...

> Despite the current limitations, I firmly believe that PVH should be
> HVM
> - device model, rather than PV + VMX/SVM.  

I think that might be a dangerous route to take, classifying upfront
whether it's that way or the other. Eg, if we say it's former, then
anyone adding any feature would not examine the best approach, but just
take hvm approach.

> Fundamentally, the end goal of PVH needs deciding ASAP, and
> documenting, to help guide decisions like this.

I think it's decided somewhat. Evolve to one of three approaches: PV,
HVM, or alternate, picking the easiest and fastest. IMO, at the very
least, pvh should retain "guest modified" characteristic, that would be
good for xen future imho.

Mukesh