Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751745AbWCNAkJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Mar 2006 19:40:09 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751763AbWCNAkI (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Mar 2006 19:40:08 -0500 Received: from e35.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.153]:16535 "EHLO e35.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751746AbWCNAkG (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Mar 2006 19:40:06 -0500 Message-ID: <441610DE.5060709@us.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 18:39:58 -0600 From: Anthony Liguori User-Agent: Mail/News 1.5 (X11/20060309) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Zachary Amsden CC: Linus Torvalds , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Virtualization Mailing List , Xen-devel , Andrew Morton , Dan Hecht , Dan Arai , Anne Holler , Pratap Subrahmanyam , Christopher Li , Joshua LeVasseur , Chris Wright , Rik Van Riel , Jyothy Reddy , Jack Lo , Kip Macy , Jan Beulich , Ky Srinivasan , Wim Coekaerts , Leendert van Doorn Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH 0/24] VMI i386 Linux virtualization interface proposal References: <200603131758.k2DHwQM7005618@zach-dev.vmware.com> In-Reply-To: <200603131758.k2DHwQM7005618@zach-dev.vmware.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2515 Lines: 53 Zachary Amsden wrote: > This is by no means finished work. A few of the areas that need more > attention and exploration are (a) 64bit support is still lacking, but we > feel a port of VMI to the 64 bit Linux can be done without too much > trouble (b) the Xen compatibility layer needs some work to bring it > up to the Xen 3.0 interfaces. Work is underway on this already, and > no major issues are expected at this time. > Hi Zach, Can you please post the Xen compatibility layer (even if it is for 2.0.x). I think it's important to see that code to understand the advantages/disadvantages compared to the existing Xen paravirtualization interface. Likewise, any Xen performance data would be useful as there has been some discussion about whether VMI would negatively impact Xen performance[1]. Thanks, Anthony Liguori > Two final notes. This is not an attempt to force a proprietary interface > into the Linux kernel. This is an attempt to find a common interface > that can be used by many hypervisors by isolating hypervisor specific > idioms into a neutral layer. This new layer is just what is claims to > be - a virtual machine interface, which allows hypervisor dependent code > to be abstracted in a way that benefits both Linux and hypervisor > development. > > This is also not an attempt to define an exact and final specification > of how virtualization should be done in Linux. This is very much a work > in progress, and it is understood that the interfaces proposed here will > change in time to accommodate the needs of all interested parties. We > hope to find a common solution that can eventually become part of the > Linux kernel and serve as a model for other operating systems as well. > > We appreciate your feedback on this design and the patches to Linux, and > welcome working with anyone who is interested in making virtualization > in Linux a friendly environment to innovate in. If you find the ideas > here interesting, please volunteer to help improve them. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Virtualization mailing list > Virtualization@lists.osdl.org > https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization > - 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/