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 13:51:33 +0000 Message-ID: <569E3F65.2020003@citrix.com> References: <1453142404-8819-1-git-send-email-andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> <1453196796.6020.217.camel@citrix.com> <20160119134605.GD96813@deinos.phlegethon.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20160119134605.GD96813@deinos.phlegethon.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Tim Deegan , Ian Campbell Cc: George Dunlap , Doug Goldstein , Jan Beulich , Xen-devel List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 19/01/16 13:46, Tim Deegan wrote: > At 09:46 +0000 on 19 Jan (1453196796), Ian Campbell 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? > Without shadow paging you can't do live migration of PV guests. That > should go in the kconfig description. > > AFAICT nested virt depends on HAP rather than shadow. Nothing currently enforces this. Xen dies particularly quickly with spinlock contention if a shadow HVM guest tries to use nested-virt. (Just another item on the long list of tasks requires before nested-virt becomes anything other than experimental.) ~Andrew