On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 9:24 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 2:12 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> I've read several times now that developing in a single tree leads to
>>> better results. Can you provide some example from the QEMU/KVM projects
>>> where the split is preventing innovati
On Mon, 25 Jul 2011, Pekka Enberg wrote:
I don't think toyvisor2 will do, really. I originally wanted to call the
hypervisor 'pvm' for selfish reasons because quite frankly 'penix' just
doesn't have the prestige 'linux' has. However, Ingo convinced me that
'kvm' is a good name and I agree with t
On 2011-07-25 09:37, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> Hi Jan,
>
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 2:12 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> I've read several times now that developing in a single tree leads to
>> better results. Can you provide some example from the QEMU/KVM projects
>> where the split is preventing innovation
On 07/25/2011 04:10 PM, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> That actually makes a ton of sense. One immediate win would be that
> klibc can be tuned to the kernel it ships with (the dynamic loader will
> pick the correct object), so less #ifdef trees. Another would be to
> make klibc the formal kernel in
On 25.07.2011, at 15:09, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> Hi Alexander,
>
> On Mon, 2011-07-25 at 14:51 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> And if you need to share code with perf, then that just proves the
>> point that perf doesn't belong inside the kernel tree either.
>
> You seem to want to prove somethin
On 07/25/2011 07:59 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 07/25/2011 09:50 AM, Sasha Levin wrote:
Anthony had a talk on last years KVM forum regarding the QEMU threading
model (slide:
http://www.linux-kvm.org/wiki/images/7/70/2010-forum-threading-qemu.pdf)
.
It was suggested that the KVM part of QEMU is
On Mon, 2011-07-25 at 14:54 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> On 25.07.2011, at 14:51, Sasha Levin wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2011-07-25 at 15:47 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >> On 07/25/2011 03:45 PM, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
> > And don't get th
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 11:35:52AM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 07/25/2011 11:31 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> In Ingo's reasoning, the next step would be to rewrite glibc and put
>> it into the kernel tree, because we end up adding syscalls so adding
>> them to the in-kernel libc with the same com
Hi Alexander,
On Mon, 2011-07-25 at 14:51 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> And if you need to share code with perf, then that just proves the
> point that perf doesn't belong inside the kernel tree either.
You seem to want to prove something here but our reasoning is based on
experience and practic
On 07/25/2011 09:50 AM, Sasha Levin wrote:
Anthony had a talk on last years KVM forum regarding the QEMU threading
model (slide:
http://www.linux-kvm.org/wiki/images/7/70/2010-forum-threading-qemu.pdf) .
It was suggested that the KVM part of QEMU is having a hard time
achieving the ideal threadi
On 25.07.2011, at 14:51, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-07-25 at 15:47 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> On 07/25/2011 03:45 PM, Pekka Enberg wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
> And don't get this the wrong way either, I'm not hostile against other
> operati
On Mon, 2011-07-25 at 15:47 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 07/25/2011 03:45 PM, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
> > >> And don't get this the wrong way either, I'm not hostile against other
> > >> operating systems, but I simply am not interested en
On 25.07.2011, at 14:47, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 07/25/2011 03:45 PM, Pekka Enberg wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> >> And don't get this the wrong way either, I'm not hostile against other
>> >> operating systems, but I simply am not interested enough in the
On 07/25/2011 03:45 PM, Pekka Enberg wrote:
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> And don't get this the wrong way either, I'm not hostile against other
>> operating systems, but I simply am not interested enough in them to
>> spend my time improving them.
>
> Then kvm-t
On 07/25/2011 03:41 PM, Pekka Enberg wrote:
On Mon, 2011-07-25 at 14:24 +0200, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> So, as always, which set of command line switches works better for you
> depends entirely on your use case.
I actually don't agree. I think Qemu requires way too much configuration
from the user
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> And don't get this the wrong way either, I'm not hostile against other
>> operating systems, but I simply am not interested enough in them to
>> spend my time improving them.
>
> Then kvm-tool is about as useful as Mac-on-Linux. Why don't
Hi Kevin,
On Mon, 2011-07-25 at 14:24 +0200, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> You've just chosen a different default. I'd argue that most users (i.e.
> not developers of the tool or the kernel) actually want to run with a
> disk image and graphics. You can type "qemu-kvm harddisk.img" and that's
> it. This is
Hi Christoph,
On Mon, 2011-07-25 at 06:38 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 10:14:13AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> > So instead of thinking a bit and trying to realize that there might be a
> > reason people don't want all their user space in the kernel tree you go
> >
Am 25.07.2011 10:30, schrieb Pekka Enberg:
> Hi Alexander,
>
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>> So i wanted to have a lightweight tool that allows me to test KVM and
>>> tools/kvm/ does that very nicely: i type './kvm run' and i can test a
>>> native bzImage (which has
* Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 10:14:13AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> > So instead of thinking a bit and trying to realize that there
> > might be a reason people don't want all their user space in the
> > kernel tree you go ahead and start your own crusade of creatin
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 01:34:25PM +0200, Olivier Galibert wrote:
> You need someone with taste in the loop. But if you do, "evolved" is
> always better than "designed before you actually know what you need".
>
> As I'm sure you perfectly know, for the matter.
Neither is actually helpful. You r
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 11:03:32AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> It's very hard to understand. It's similar to religion - I could
> easily apply your point to every reasonably low-level user space
> project out there. X for example. X needs to interact with KMS and
> DRI and whatdoiknow. So it'd b
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 07:24:12AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 01:08:10PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > Fact is that developing ABIs within an integrated project is
> > *amazingly* powerful. You should try it one day, instead of
> > criticizing it :-)
>
> I've been
* Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 01:08:10PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> > Fact is that developing ABIs within an integrated project is
> > *amazingly* powerful. You should try it one day, instead of
> > criticizing it :-)
>
> I've been doing this long before you declare
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 01:08:10PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Fact is that developing ABIs within an integrated project is
> *amazingly* powerful. You should try it one day, instead of
> criticizing it :-)
I've been doing this long before you declare it the rosetta stone. Some
of the worst ABI
* Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > So, since we already have the lguest tool in the kernel tree,
> > > why cannot we have the much more capable tools/kvm/ in the
> > > tree?
> >
> > Lguest is in Documentation/ for a reason. It's not meant as a
> > user space tool that you take as-is and use. I
* Alexander Graf wrote:
> > You know, they said the same thing about oprofile. All you needed
> > to do was to write few simple shell scripts to make it work. One
> > of the key features of tools/kvm is 'as little configuration as
> > possible' and I can assure you that bash alias is really n
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 10:14:13AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> So instead of thinking a bit and trying to realize that there might be a
> reason people don't want all their user space in the kernel tree you go ahead
> and start your own crusade of creating a new user space. Great. That's how I
* Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 25.07.2011, at 12:16, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> >>
> >>> So it was a no brainer for me to pull it into -tip.
> >>
> >> The thing I don't agree with is that it should live in the
> >> kernel tree.
> >
> > FYI, tools/kvm/ *already* lives in the kernel tree - that
* Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 07/25/2011 01:03 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >> > Then look at the actual drivers and interfaces within tools/kvm/.
> >> > It's using the same symbols and conventions for 'guest' and
> >> > 'host' side.
> >> >
> >> > Check out tools/kvm/hw/i8042.c and match it up w
* Alexander Graf wrote:
> On 25.07.2011, at 11:41, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> >>> Virtualization is very tightly bound to the kernel, like it or
> >>> not. So is profiling, power management and a few other things.
> >
> > It's a very simple point and observation: tools which integrate
> > to the
On 25.07.2011, at 12:16, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>
>>> So it was a no brainer for me to pull it into -tip.
>>
>> The thing I don't agree with is that it should live in the kernel
>> tree.
>
> FYI, tools/kvm/ *already* lives in the kernel tree - that is how it's
> developed and used and it also s
On 07/25/2011 01:03 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > Then look at the actual drivers and interfaces within tools/kvm/.
> > It's using the same symbols and conventions for 'guest' and
> > 'host' side.
> >
> > Check out tools/kvm/hw/i8042.c and match it up with
> > include/linux/serio.h and dr
* Alexander Graf wrote:
> > In fact one of the problems i see with Qemu is that Qemu had to
> > make many compromises to support Windows and other weird
> > platforms that i'm (and i'd claim most other Linux kernel
> > developers) are personally not interested in.
>
> It's what makes it so p
* Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 07/25/2011 12:41 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > Look at tools/kvm/ - i cannot do anything useful without a Linux
> > kernel under it. It's as deeply bound to the Linux kernel as it
> > gets.
>
> The actual code that interacts with the kernel is pretty small, and
> will
On 07/25/2011 12:41 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
Look at tools/kvm/ - i cannot do anything useful without a Linux
kernel under it. It's as deeply bound to the Linux kernel as it gets.
The actual code that interacts with the kernel is pretty small, and will
grow smaller (as a fraction) in time.
Th
On 25.07.2011, at 11:41, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>> Virtualization is very tightly bound to the kernel, like it or
>>> not. So is profiling, power management and a few other things.
>
> It's a very simple point and observation: tools which integrate to
> the kernel so that they wouldnt even run on
* Alexander Graf wrote:
> On 25.07.2011, at 10:54, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> >
> > * Alexander Graf wrote:
> >
> >> On 25.07.2011, at 09:53, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> * Pekka Enberg wrote:
> >>>
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 2:12 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >
> > That said,
On 25.07.2011, at 11:26, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Pekka Enberg wrote:
>
>> [ I thought the 'native Linux' part in 'native Linux KVM tool' was
>> a dead giveaway, really. ]
>>
>> Now if people want to support other operating systems, that's cool
>> and I'm happy to help out where I can. But
* Pekka Enberg wrote:
> [ I thought the 'native Linux' part in 'native Linux KVM tool' was
> a dead giveaway, really. ]
>
> Now if people want to support other operating systems, that's cool
> and I'm happy to help out where I can. But I don't understand why
> people keep bringing non-Linux
* Pekka Enberg wrote:
> Hi Alexander,
>
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >> Damn you Ingo Molnar, I knew you'd somehow get all the credit for our
> >> hard work! ;-)
> >
> > Well, IIUC he's the one initiating the whole thing, no?
>
> As much as I appreciate Ingo's h
* Pekka Enberg wrote:
> Hi Alexander,
>
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >> Same here - in fact i first asked Qemu to be put into
> >> tools/qemu/ so that it all becomes more hackable and more usable
> >> - that suggestion was rebuked very strongly.
> >
> > So ins
On 25.07.2011, at 10:47, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> Hi Alexander,
>
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>> different direction we're taking. Hell, we even went ahead and wrote our
>>> own
>>> mini-BIOS just to keep things in one unified tree. ]
>>
>> Yes, making sure that
On 25.07.2011, at 10:54, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Alexander Graf wrote:
>
>> On 25.07.2011, at 09:53, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> * Pekka Enberg wrote:
>>>
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 2:12 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>
> That said, I definitely appreciate the bug fixes as well as
>
* Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Virtualization is very tightly bound to the kernel, like it or not.
> So is profiling, power management and a few other things.
>
> And when you do 'ls tools/' you'll see exactly those topics
> populated:
>
> earth5:~/tip> ls tools/
> firewire kvm perf power slub
On 25.07.2011, at 10:51, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 11:44 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>> For the same reasons we want tools/perf to be there.
>>
>> Yeah, I want a pony too.
>
> I can contact the Linux Foundation to see if we can arrange that.
>
> Seriously, though, I don't u
* Alexander Graf wrote:
> On 25.07.2011, at 09:53, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> >
> > * Pekka Enberg wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 2:12 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >>>
> >>> That said, I definitely appreciate the bug fixes as well as
> >>> code and documentation improvements for KVM that o
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 11:44 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> For the same reasons we want tools/perf to be there.
>
> Yeah, I want a pony too.
I can contact the Linux Foundation to see if we can arrange that.
Seriously, though, I don't understand your point. What is it? Do you
not agree that perf
Hi Alexander,
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> different direction we're taking. Hell, we even went ahead and wrote our own
>> mini-BIOS just to keep things in one unified tree. ]
>
> Yes, making sure that you have even more non-working non-Linux OSs.
You know, I've b
On 25.07.2011, at 10:37, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> Hi Alexander,
>
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>> Damn you Ingo Molnar, I knew you'd somehow get all the credit for our
>>> hard work! ;-)
>>
>> Well, IIUC he's the one initiating the whole thing, no?
>
> As much as I
On 25.07.2011, at 10:30, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> Hi Alexander,
>
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>> So i wanted to have a lightweight tool that allows me to test KVM and
>>> tools/kvm/ does that very nicely: i type './kvm run' and i can test a
>>> native bzImage (which
Hi Alexander,
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> Damn you Ingo Molnar, I knew you'd somehow get all the credit for our
>> hard work! ;-)
>
> Well, IIUC he's the one initiating the whole thing, no?
As much as I appreciate Ingo's help and support with the project, no,
I don
On 07/25/2011 11:31 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
In Ingo's reasoning, the next step would be to rewrite glibc and put it into
the kernel tree, because we end up adding syscalls so adding them to the
in-kernel libc with the same commit would be a lot easier and cleaner.
That actually makes a ton
On 25.07.2011, at 09:50, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-07-25 at 01:12 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2011-07-24 22:37, Pekka Enberg wrote:
>>> Hi Linus,
>>>
>>> Please consider pulling from
>>>
>>> ssh://master.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/penberg/linux.git
>>> kvm-tool-for-linus
>>
On 25.07.2011, at 10:23, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> Hi Alexander,
>
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>> Same here - in fact i first asked Qemu to be put into tools/qemu/ so
>>> that it all becomes more hackable and more usable - that suggestion
>>> was rebuked very strongly
Hi Alexander,
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> So i wanted to have a lightweight tool that allows me to test KVM and
>> tools/kvm/ does that very nicely: i type './kvm run' and i can test a
>> native bzImage (which has some virtualization options enabled as
>> well) on t
Hi Alexander,
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> Same here - in fact i first asked Qemu to be put into tools/qemu/ so
>> that it all becomes more hackable and more usable - that suggestion
>> was rebuked very strongly.
>
> So instead of thinking a bit and trying to realize
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 4:19 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> >> > lguest already does this and lives in the kernel.
On 07/25/2011 10:27 AM, Pekka Enberg wrote:
>> >> Does Lguest have SMP, usermode networking, and GUI support?
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 3:36 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> > IIRC, yes, no,
On 25.07.2011, at 09:53, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Pekka Enberg wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 2:12 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> That said, I definitely appreciate the bug fixes as well as code and
>>> documentation improvements for KVM that originate from this effort! I'm
>>> just not convi
* Asias He wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 3:36 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>
> > On 07/25/2011 10:27 AM, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Anthony,
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 4:19 AM, Anthony Liguori
> >> wrote:
> >> > lguest already does this and lives in the kernel.
> >>
> >> Does Lguest
On Mon, 2011-07-25 at 10:36 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 07/25/2011 10:27 AM, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> > Hi Anthony,
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 4:19 AM, Anthony Liguori
> > wrote:
> > > lguest already does this and lives in the kernel.
> >
> > Does Lguest have SMP, usermode networking, and GU
* Pekka Enberg wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 2:12 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > That said, I definitely appreciate the bug fixes as well as code and
> > documentation improvements for KVM that originate from this effort! I'm
> > just not convinced that writing a new userland and merging it into
On Mon, 2011-07-25 at 01:12 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2011-07-24 22:37, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> > Hi Linus,
> >
> > Please consider pulling from
> >
> > ssh://master.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/penberg/linux.git
> > kvm-tool-for-linus
> >
> > to merge the Native Linux KVM tool to Lin
Hi Avi,
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> Are you talking about Documentation/lguest/lguest.c? How would you
>> suggest we unify our code with that?
>
> It should be easy to have tools/kvm drive lguest - they're both virtio
> based. All you need to do is provide yet another
Hi Jan,
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 2:12 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> I've read several times now that developing in a single tree leads to
> better results. Can you provide some example from the QEMU/KVM projects
> where the split is preventing innovation, optimizations, or some other
> kind of progress?
On 07/25/2011 10:27 AM, Pekka Enberg wrote:
Hi Anthony,
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 4:19 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> lguest already does this and lives in the kernel.
Does Lguest have SMP, usermode networking, and GUI support?
IIRC, yes, no, and no.
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 4:19 AM, Anthony
Hi Anthony,
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 4:19 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> lguest already does this and lives in the kernel.
Does Lguest have SMP, usermode networking, and GUI support?
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 4:19 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> So purely from a kernel perspective, why have two tools
On 07/24/2011 03:37 PM, Pekka Enberg wrote:
Hi Linus,
Please consider pulling from
ssh://master.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/penberg/linux.git
kvm-tool-for-linus
to merge the Native Linux KVM tool to Linux 3.1.
[ The changes to 9p headers were already merged but show up in the pull
req
On 2011-07-24 22:37, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> Hi Linus,
>
> Please consider pulling from
>
> ssh://master.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/penberg/linux.git
> kvm-tool-for-linus
>
> to merge the Native Linux KVM tool to Linux 3.1.
>
> [ The changes to 9p headers were already merged but show u
69 matches
Mail list logo
