Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757009AbZDECjS (ORCPT ); Sat, 4 Apr 2009 22:39:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756687AbZDECjD (ORCPT ); Sat, 4 Apr 2009 22:39:03 -0400 Received: from yx-out-2324.google.com ([74.125.44.29]:29949 "EHLO yx-out-2324.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753807AbZDECjB (ORCPT ); Sat, 4 Apr 2009 22:39:01 -0400 Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [GIT PULL] Xen for 2.6.30 #2 From: William Pitcock To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge , the arch/x86 maintainers , Linus Torvalds , Xen-devel , Linux Kernel Mailing List In-Reply-To: <20090403173623.GB6295@elte.hu> References: <49D1209A.9000800@goop.org> <49D25A42.7060300@goop.org> <20090331185541.GA17807@elte.hu> <49D2713D.6090401@goop.org> <20090403173623.GB6295@elte.hu> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 21:38:54 -0500 Message-Id: <1238899134.5814.172.camel@petrie> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1686 Lines: 41 Hi, On Fri, 2009-04-03 at 19:36 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > > >> You know our stance which is very simple: dont put in Xen-only > >> hooks that slow down native, and get rid of the existing Xen-only > >> hooks. > > > > Yes, I understand that. Unlike the pvops stuff, the dom0 changes > > are largely all init-time and setup, and so have no performance > > impact. > > Yes, but once dom0 goes in your incentive to fix the native kernel > performance drain we accumulated along the years of paravirt layers > will be strongly weakened, right? :) > There's plenty of incentive for everyone who has a stake in this thing to ensure that paravirt performs equally to native. I do not see how you could be legitimately concerned about that. Are you saying that you are intentionally blocking dom0 work from progressing (and thus alienating many enterprise linux users who have millions of $ on hardware running Xen where switching to KVM is simply NOT an option) because you feel that paravirt performance will not be improved? Regardless of however many kernel developers claim that KVM is an enterprise-capable solution, it simply isn't. It may be at some point, but that point is not today. Please let us have some modern hardware support and features for our xen-based server clusters (well, without forward-porting the 2.6.18 patchset) and stop this political bullshit. William -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/