Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755137AbZIVIKR (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Sep 2009 04:10:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754618AbZIVIKP (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Sep 2009 04:10:15 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:41612 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754383AbZIVIKO (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Sep 2009 04:10:14 -0400 Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 10:09:13 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Cc: Avi Kivity , Arjan van de Ven , Alok Kataria , Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" , the arch/x86 maintainers , LKML , Chris Wright , Rusty Russell , "virtualization@lists.osdl.org" , Greg KH , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: Paravirtualization on VMware's Platform [VMI]. Message-ID: <20090922080913.GB1475@elte.hu> References: <1253233028.19731.63.camel@ank32.eng.vmware.com> <20090919224430.GB9567@kroah.com> <1253419185.3253.21.camel@ank32.eng.vmware.com> <20090920074247.GA5733@elte.hu> <20090920095239.456ad6f2@infradead.org> <4AB5EF25.9070502@redhat.com> <4AB64EFC.10707@goop.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4AB64EFC.10707@goop.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1481 Lines: 42 * Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > On 09/20/09 02:00, Avi Kivity wrote: > > On 09/20/2009 10:52 AM, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > >> On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 09:42:47 +0200 > >> Ingo Molnar wrote: > >> > >> > >>> If we were able to rip out all (or most) of paravirt from arch/x86 it > >>> would be tempting for other technical reasons - but the patch above > >>> is well localized. > >>> > >> interesting question is if this would allow us to remove a few of the > >> paravirt hooks.... > >> > > > > kvm will be removing the pvmmu support soon; and Xen is talking about > > running paravirtualized guests in a vmx/svm container where they don't > > need most of the hooks. > > We have no plans to drop support for non-vmx/svm capable processors, > let alone require ept/npt. But, just to map out our plans for the future, do you concur with the statements and numbers offered here by the VMware and KVM folks that on sufficiently recent hardware, hardware-assisted virtualization outperforms paravirt_ops in many (most?) workloads? I.e. paravirt_ops becomes a legacy hardware thing, not a core component of the design of arch/x86/. (with a long obsoletion period, of course.) Thanks, Ingo -- 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/