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 ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration Strategies from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward articles, informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need to get up to speed, fast. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7477&alloc_id=16492&op=click _______________________________________________ ckrm-tech mailing list https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ckrm-tech
