From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Keir Fraser Subject: Re: Re: Linux Stubdom Problem Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 07:02:07 +0100 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Stefano Stabellini , Tim Deegan Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" , Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , Ian Campbell , Jiageng Yu , Anthony PERARD , Thibault List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 29/08/2011 17:03, "Stefano Stabellini" wrote: >> Oh, so it will. You'd need to arrange for that to be called from inside >> the guest; or you could implement an add_to_physmap space for it; that >> could be called from another domain. > > "From inside the guest" means hvmloader? > The good thing about doing it in hvmloader is that we could use the > traditional PV frontend/backend mechanism to share pages. On the other > hand hvmloader doesn't know if we are using stubdoms at the moment and > it would need to issue the grant table hypercall only in that case. > Unless we decide to always grant the videoram to guests but it would > change once again the domain to which the videoram is accounted for > (dom0/stubdom rather than the guest, that is a bad thing). > Also I don't like the idea of making hvmloader stubdom aware. I don't see a problem with it, in principle. I see hvmloader as almost an in-guest part of the toolstack. The fact that it only executes at guest boot means it can be fairly closely tied to the toolstack version. -- Keir