Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753599Ab0LFP7W (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Dec 2010 10:59:22 -0500 Received: from usmamail.tilera.com ([206.83.70.70]:46404 "EHLO USMAMAIL.TILERA.COM" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750837Ab0LFP7V (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Dec 2010 10:59:21 -0500 Message-ID: <4CFD0857.8050205@tilera.com> Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 10:59:19 -0500 From: Chris Metcalf User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.1.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jan Kiszka CC: Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: Roadmap for KVM support on Tile? References: <4CFCD363.7060803@siemens.com> In-Reply-To: <4CFCD363.7060803@siemens.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2379 Lines: 54 On 12/6/2010 7:13 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote: > Hi Chris, > > as I'm already running around, telling people that Tile might be the > next arch to gain KVM support, I wanted to back this derived [1] > information with some more details. Can you share some of your plans > regarding this, either officially (LKML, kvm-devel) or yet privately? > - What will be the level of support in the first version and long-term > (CPU virtualization + I/O emulation, also I/O virtualization/ > pass-though)? > - What use cases do you target, and why do you plan to use KVM for > them? > - What use cases may not fit a KVM-based approach? > > The background of this questionnaire is not (yet) a concrete project > based on a Tile processor and KVM. Right now I'm primarily promoting KVM > for use cases beyond classic x86 server scenarios, both in-house as well > as in the community. > > TiA! > > Best regards, > Jan Kiszka > > [1] http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1048568 We already have a hypervisor that is used for Tile, which allows us to do client isolation and spatial multiplexing (i.e. splitting the cores among different supervisors), and smooths over some of the more nitty-gritty hardware issues to present an easier API to the client supervisor, e.g. Linux. The supervisor is paravirtualized, i.e. aware of the hypervisor API for page-table management and I/O access. But moving forward there is some appeal to using a standard virtualization technology, and we picked KVM as the target that seemed best for us to support. Some of the things this will facilitate for us include dynamic reconfiguration of supervisor domains, sharing I/O devices between supervisors, providing virtual devices to supervisors, virtual machine migration/snapshots, etc. And, we'd like to support a standard management interface such as the KVM interface, so our customers don't have to learn how to manage the Tilera-specific hypervisor software. None of this is committed to any particular release schedule yet, but this is the direction we are currently planning to head. -- Chris Metcalf, Tilera Corp. http://www.tilera.com -- 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/