Hi Udo, > Just to clarify this point: > > The hypervisor neither forces you to put Vancouver and its > associated VM in the same PD, nor does it force you to have one > instance of Vancouver per VM. You can create a PD, remotely create > a vCPU in it and establish the VMX/SVM portals to point to some > other PD. Then that other PD can manage its virtual address space > any way it wants.
thanks. Let's keep that for the records. ;-) > > That said, we have found that putting both VMM and VM in the same > PD has a number of advantages. First, a VMM needs to frequently > access the memory of its VM, e.g., to look at the guest page > tables. Having a 1:1 relationship between virtual memory in the VMM > and guest-physical memory of the VM greatly simplifies that task. > Second, if the VMM and VM were in different PDs, you'd pay for two > additional address-space switches on each VM exit. These are damn good arguments for the current design - I don't dare to question them. So the 1:1 relationship between guest memory and Vancouver's address space is actually not "imposed" by the kernel but seems to be the most sensible design. Sorry that I mixed that up. Cheers Norman -- Dr.-Ing. Norman Feske Genode Labs http://www.genode-labs.com · http://genode.org Genode Labs GmbH · Amtsgericht Dresden · HRB 28424 · Sitz Dresden Geschäftsführer: Dr.-Ing. Norman Feske, Christian Helmuth ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ Genode-main mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/genode-main
