>>> On 13.01.15 at 17:17, <vkuzn...@redhat.com> wrote: > Ian Campbell <ian.campb...@citrix.com> writes: >> An alternative approach to this might be to walk the guest p2m (with >> appropriate continuations) and move each domheap page (this would also >> help us preserve super page mappings). It would also have the advantage >> of not needing additional stages in the destroy path and state in struct >> domain etc, since all the action would be constrained to the one >> hypercall. > > Something like that (but not exactly) was in my RFC/WIPv2 series: > http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2014-09/msg03624.html > > The drawback of such approach is the necessity of copying all mapped > more than once pages (granted pages, qemu-mapped pages, ...) or at least > providing blank pages instead of them.
Why would that be necessary only in that alternative model? What gets done with pages used by other than _just_ the dying domain shouldn't depend on how the MFN/GFN relationship gets determined. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
