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 19:39:36 +0100 Message-ID: References: <20110628113205.1a3c5988@mantra.us.oracle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20110628113205.1a3c5988@mantra.us.oracle.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: Mukesh Rathor Cc: George Dunlap , "Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" , Ian Campbell List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 28/06/2011 19:32, "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. > > Could we perhaps define a HYBRID type that will have characteristics > like, this runs in HVM container, it doesn't use EPT, it uses HVM > callback, etc.. We can they modify it without defining any new types in > future, say we find it works better with EPT under certain > circumstances etc.. What do you think? Yes, I don't mind the idea of some HVM extensions for performance, and that will probably become increasingly important. I just think we should support unmodified PV as a baseline, with best performance possible (i.e., the basic HVM container approach should support it). -- Keir