Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758416AbYJGXlf (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Oct 2008 19:41:35 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757891AbYJGXlQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Oct 2008 19:41:16 -0400 Received: from gw.goop.org ([64.81.55.164]:49755 "EHLO mail.goop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757374AbYJGXlO (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Oct 2008 19:41:14 -0400 Message-ID: <48EBF396.8000502@goop.org> Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2008 16:41:10 -0700 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (X11/20080919) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Nakajima, Jun" CC: "H. Peter Anvin" , "akataria@vmware.com" , "avi@redhat.com" , Rusty Russell , Gerd Hoffmann , Ingo Molnar , the arch/x86 maintainers , LKML , 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> <48E3B19D.6060905@zytor.com> <1222882431.9381.23.camel@alok-dev1> <48E3BC21.4080803@goop.org> <1222895153.9381.69.camel@alok-dev1> <48E3FDD5.7040106@zytor.com> <0B53E02A2965CE4F9ADB38B34501A3A15D927EA4@orsmsx505.amr.corp.intel.com> <48E422CA.2010606@zytor.com> <0B53E02A2965CE4F9ADB38B34501A3A15DCBA221@orsmsx505.amr.corp.intel.com> <48E6AB15.8060405@zytor.com> <0B53E02A2965CE4F9ADB38B34501A3A15DCBA325@orsmsx505.amr.corp.intel.com> <48E6BA5B.2090804@zytor.com> <0B53E02A2965CE4F9ADB38B34501A3A15DE4F934@orsmsx505.amr.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <0B53E02A2965CE4F9ADB38B34501A3A15DE4F934@orsmsx505.amr.corp.intel.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; 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: 1659 Lines: 35 Nakajima, Jun wrote: > On 10/3/2008 5:35:39 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > >> Nakajima, Jun wrote: >> >>> What's the significance of supporting multiple interfaces to the >>> same guest simultaneously, i.e. _runtime_? We don't want the guests >>> to run on such a literarily Frankenstein machine. And practically, >>> such testing/debugging would be good only for Halloween :-). >>> >>> >> By that notion, EVERY CPU currently shipped is a "Frankenstein" CPU, >> since at very least they export Intel-derived and AMD-derived interfaces. >> This is in other words, a ridiculous claim. >> > > The big difference here is that you could create a VM at runtime (by combining the existing interfaces) that did not exist before (or was not tested before). For example, a hypervisor could show hyper-v, osx-v (if any), linux-v, etc., and a guest could create a VM with hyper-v MMU, osx-v interrupt handling, Linux-v timer, etc. And such combinations/variations can grow exponentially. > That would be crazy. > Or are you suggesting that multiple interfaces be _available_ to guests at runtime but the guest chooses one of them? > Right, that's what I've been suggesting. I think hypervisors should be able to offer multiple ABIs to guests, but a guest has to commit to using one exclusively (ie, once they start to use one then the others turn themselves off, kill the domain, etc). J -- 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/