Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754131AbYJAVct (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Oct 2008 17:32:49 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753386AbYJAVck (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Oct 2008 17:32:40 -0400 Received: from mail-gx0-f16.google.com ([209.85.217.16]:52620 "EHLO mail-gx0-f16.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753376AbYJAVcj (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Oct 2008 17:32:39 -0400 Message-ID: <48E3EC32.4030603@codemonkey.ws> Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 16:31:30 -0500 From: Anthony Liguori User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (X11/20080723) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Chris Wright CC: akataria@vmware.com, Jeremy Fitzhardinge , "avi@redhat.com" , Rusty Russell , Gerd Hoffmann , "H. Peter Anvin" , Ingo Molnar , the arch/x86 maintainers , LKML , "Nakajima, Jun" , Daniel Hecht , Zach Amsden , "virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org" , "kvm@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [RFC] CPUID usage for interaction between Hypervisors and Linux. References: <1222881242.9381.17.camel@alok-dev1> <48E3BBC1.2050607@goop.org> <1222894878.9381.63.camel@alok-dev1> <48E3E6DF.8060400@codemonkey.ws> <20081001211532.GC634@sequoia.sous-sol.org> In-Reply-To: <20081001211532.GC634@sequoia.sous-sol.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1195 Lines: 35 Chris Wright wrote: > * Anthony Liguori (anthony@codemonkey.ws) wrote: > >> We've already gone down the road of trying to make standard paravirtual >> interfaces (via virtio). No one was sufficiently interested in >> collaborating. I don't see why other paravirtualizations are going to >> be much different. >> > > The point is to be able to support those interfaces. Presently a Linux guest > will test and find out which HV it's running on, and adapt. Another > guest will fail to enlighten itself, and perf will suffer...yadda, yadda. > Agreeing on CPUID does not get us close at all to having shared interfaces for paravirtualization. As I said in another note, there are more fundamental things that we differ on (like hypercall mechanism) that's going to make that challenging. We already are sharing code, when appropriate (see the Xen/KVM PV clock interface). Regards, Anthony Liguori > thanks, > -chris > -- 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/