Thread (31 messages) 31 messages, 8 authors, 2007-12-21

Re: Re: Next steps with pv_ops for Xen

From: Mark Williamson <hidden>
Date: 2007-12-05 03:42:19
Also in: xen-devel

I am not quite clear about the purpose of pv-ops , what do we want to
deal with by developping "pv-ops"? is it used for HVM or for PV or KVM
or something ? I have seen it for a few months in the list ,and
"pv-ops"is an active project ,but i am not clear about what is the aim
of "pv-ops" ,could you give me an explanation about it
PV-ops is an API within Linux which is used to support paravirtualisation.

paravirt-ops makes it possible to compile a Linux kernel which can boot on 
bare hardware, or on Xen, or using VMI (VMware's paravirtualised interface), 
lguest, or any other VMM that is supported.  The resulting kernel can then 
boot on any of those and make proper use of paravirtualisation.

For instance, with 2.6.23 from kernel.org you should be able to compile a 
kernel that will boot both on bare hardware and in a Xen domU in PV mode.  
Various tricks are used to ensure that it will run with good performance on 
both.

pv-ops mostly deals with the paravirtualisation of the CPU.  IO devices such 
as block and network are handled using Xen-aware drivers rather similar to 
those in the XenSource Linux kernels, they are not part of pv-ops.

Cheers,
Mark

Thanks in advance

Mark Williamson 写道:
quoted
quoted
Hi Mark,
quoted
Maybe a change to the gntdev userspace API to allow batching
of mapping requests?
Something along the lines of the following?
Just like that :-D

When you said "multiple syscalls per mapping" I assumed you meant that
we'd lose the batching you get by doing a mulicall.  If it's just a
couple of syscalls (plus, presumably a couple of hypercalls) per batch of
mappings, my gut says it's probably not going to hurt block performance. 
My guts have been wrong in (many!) ways before of course...

I guess the overhead *could* be reduced even more by just having a magic
ioctl that did all the mmap-ing stuff in one operation, but that'd
probably be really gross if it wasn't necessary!  And I doubt it'd make
upstream very happy...

We'll also be eliminating the overheads involved in having a blktap ring
for talking to userspace and having to move requests between that ring
and the real block ring, so there's some definite wins in overheads as
well.

Cheers,
Mark


-- 
Dave: Just a question. What use is a unicyle with no seat?  And no pedals!
Mark: To answer a question with a question: What use is a skateboard?
Dave: Skateboards have wheels.
Mark: My wheel has a wheel!
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help