On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 12:14 PM, Josh Boyer <jwbo...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Andy Lutomirski <l...@amacapital.net> wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Linus Torvalds >> <torva...@linux-foundation.org> wrote: >>> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Linus Torvalds >>> <torva...@linux-foundation.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> So I kind of agree, but it wouldn't be my primary worry. My primary >>>> worry is actually paravirt doing something insane. >>> >>> Btw, on that tangent, does anybody actually care about paravirt any more? >>> >> >> Amazon, for better or for worse. >> >>> I'd love to start moving away from it. It makes a lot of the low-level >>> code completely impossible to follow due to the random indirection >>> through "native" vs "paravirt op table". Not just the page table >>> handling, it's all over. >>> >>> Anybody who seriously does virtualization uses hw virtualization that >>> is much better than it used to be. And the non-serious users aren't >>> that performance-sensitive by definition. >>> >>> I note that the Fedora kernel config seems to include paravirt by >>> default, so you get a lot of the crazy overheads.. >> >> I think that there is a move toward deprecating Xen PV in favor of >> PVH, but we're not there yet. > > A move where? The Xen stuff in Fedora is ... not paid attention to > very much. If there's something we should be looking at turning off > (or on), we're happy to take suggestions.
A move in the Xen project. As I understand it, Xen wants to deprecate PV in favor of PVH, but PVH is still experimental. I think that dropping PARAVIRT in Fedora might be a bad idea for several more releases, since that's likely to break the EC2 images. --Andy > > josh -- Andy Lutomirski AMA Capital Management, LLC -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
