From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Keir Fraser Subject: Re: HYBRID: PV in HVM container Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 09:35:15 +0100 Message-ID: References: <1309249817.32717.250.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1309249817.32717.250.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Ian Campbell Cc: "Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 28/06/2011 09:30, "Ian Campbell" wrote: > On Tue, 2011-06-28 at 08:46 +0100, Keir Fraser wrote: >> On 28/06/2011 02:51, "Mukesh Rathor" wrote: >> >> Well, maybe. But we now have HVM guests, PV guests, and PV-HVM guests. I'm >> not sure that adding explicitly HVM-PV guests as well isn't just a bloody >> mess. > > Ideally this container could be used to accelerate existing 64 bit > guests (e.g. older distros running classic-Xen) unmodified (or at least > only with latent bugs fixed) too. There was a question mark over whether unmodified PV guests would tolerate running in ring 0, rather than entirely in ring 3. I believe we're confident it should work, and thus supporting classic-Xen guests should certainly be the aim. > Getting something working with a modified guest seems like a useful > first step (to get to a working baseline) but I'm not sure it should be > the end goal. I certainly don't think we should commit such a thing without careful thought. -- Keir > Ian. >