Re: [PATCH] xen: core dom0 support

[Ingo Molnar]

* Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> I hate to be the one to say it, but we should sit down and 
> work out whether it is justifiable to merge any of this into 
> Linux.  I think it's still the case that the Xen technology is 
> the "old" way and that the world is moving off in the "new" 
> direction, KVM?
> 
> In three years time, will we regret having merged this?

Personally i'd like to see a sufficient reply to the mmap-perf 
paravirt regressions pointed out by Nick and reproduced by 
myself as well. (They were in the 4-5% macro-performance range 
iirc, which is huge.)

So i havent seen any real progress on reducing native kernel 
overhead with paravirt. Patches were sent but no measurements 
were done and it seemed to have all fizzled out while the dom0 
patches are being pursued.

Which is not a particularly good basis on which to add even 
_more_ paravirt stuff, is it?

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/