Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932305AbXIOALA (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Sep 2007 20:11:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755675AbXIOAKy (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Sep 2007 20:10:54 -0400 Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:40569 "EHLO mga01.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755189AbXIOAKx convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Sep 2007 20:10:53 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.20,257,1186383600"; d="scan'208";a="307350400" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Subject: RE: [kvm-devel] [PATCH] Refactor hypercall infrastructure Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 17:10:03 -0700 Message-ID: <97D612E30E1F88419025B06CB4CF1BE10379ED0A@scsmsx412.amr.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <46EB1285.5050807@goop.org> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [kvm-devel] [PATCH] Refactor hypercall infrastructure Thread-Index: Acf3IzNJy7q+iSl0RpK8hIB4pPaWSQABkxtQ References: <11897991353793-git-send-email-aliguori@us.ibm.com><46EAF4C6.8090903@goop.org> <46EAF6FC.80207@codemonkey.ws><46EAFBA0.4020503@goop.org> <46EB0136.6080105@codemonkey.ws><46EB02BA.6030909@goop.org> <46EB0657.40603@codemonkey.ws> <97D612E30E1F88419025B06CB4CF1BE10379EBF9@scsmsx412.amr.corp.intel.com> <46EB1285.5050807@goop.org> From: "Nakajima, Jun" To: "Jeremy Fitzhardinge" Cc: "Anthony Liguori" , , , "Avi Kivity" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Sep 2007 00:10:04.0408 (UTC) FILETIME=[C41B1780:01C7F72C] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1484 Lines: 41 Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > Nakajima, Jun wrote: > > > > one. Start the kvm leaves at 0x40001000 or something? > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, that works with me. > > > > > > > To me this is the beginning of fragmentation. Why do we need different > > and VMM-specific Linux paravirtualization for hardware-assisted > > virtualization? That would not be good for Linux. > > > > On the contrary. Xen already has a hypercall interface, and we need to > keep supporting it. If we were to also support a vmm-independent > interface (aka "kvm interface"), then we need to be able to do that in > parallel. If we have a cpuid leaf clash, then its impossible to do so; > if we define the new interface to be disjoint from other current users > of cpuid, then we can support them concurrently. > > J Today, 3 CPUID leaves starting from 0x4000_0000 are defined in a generic fashion (hypervisor detection, version, and hypercall page), and those are the ones used by Xen today. We should extend those leaves (e.g. starting from 0x4000_0003) for the vmm-independent features as well. If Xen needs additional Xen-specific features, we need to allocate some leaves for those (e.g. 0x4000_1000) Jun --- Intel Open Source Technology Center - 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/