From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Cooper Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Convert shadow-paging to Kconfig Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 13:47:53 +0000 Message-ID: <569E3E89.5010604@citrix.com> References: <1453142404-8819-1-git-send-email-andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> <1453196796.6020.217.camel@citrix.com> <569E46E002000078000C889C@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> <569E3A7B.6070501@citrix.com> <569E4A6E02000078000C891A@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <569E4A6E02000078000C891A@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Jan Beulich Cc: George Dunlap , TimDeegan , Doug Goldstein , Ian Campbell , Xen-devel List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 19/01/16 13:38, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 19.01.16 at 14:30, wrote: >> On 19/01/16 13:23, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>> On 19.01.16 at 10:46, wrote: >>>> On Mon, 2016-01-18 at 18:40 +0000, Andrew Cooper wrote: >>>>> Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper >>>> Does this have any impact on migration of either PV or HVM guests? What >>>> about nested virt? >>> At least PV guests won't be migratable anymore when there's no >>> shadow mode. >> What? Shadow mode (or lack thereof) has no impact whatsoever on migration. > So how would log-dirty mode work for a PV guest without shadow > code? Oops yes. I am confusing the fact that logdirty and vram tracking are independent, rather than logdiry and shadow. (we have far too many modes) I should update the text to talk about migration. ~Andrew