On Gwe, 2005-07-22 at 12:35 -0400, Mark Hahn wrote:
> I imagine you, like me, are currently sitting in the Xen talk,
Out by a few thousand miles ;)
> and I don't believe they are or will do anything so dumb as to throw away
> or lose information. yes, in principle, the logic will need to be
They don't have it in the first place.
> somewhere, and I'm suggesting that the virtualization logic should
> be in VMM-only code so it has literally zero effect on host-native
> processes. *or* the host-native fast-path.
I don't see why you are concerned. If the CKRM=n path is zero impact
then its irrelevant to you. Its more expensive to do a lot of resource
management at the VMM level because the virtualisation engine doesn't
know anything but its getting indications someone wants to be
bigger/smaller.
> but to really do CKRM, you are going to want quite extensive interaction with
> the scheduler, VM page replacement policies, etc. all incredibly
> performance-sensitive areas.
Bingo - and areas the virtualiser can't see into, at least not unless it
uses the same hooks CKRM uses
Alan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |