On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 12:39:23PM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 4:28 AM, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > Yes, the subset of x86-64 machines for which there isn't hardware
> > virtualization support is pretty uninteresting.
>
> There are plenty virtual machines in EC2, Rackspace,
> >>> struct pv_cpu_ops pv_cpu_ops;
> >>>
> >>> [only end up using cpuid. This one is a tricky one. We could
> >>>arguable remove it but it does do some filtering - for example
> >>>THERM is turned off, or MWAIT
On 08/05/2013 09:50 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>>>
>>> Let me iterate down what the experimental patch uses:
>>>
>>> struct pv_init_ops pv_init_ops;
>>>
>>> [still use xen_patch, but I think that is not needed anymore]
>>>
>>>
On Sun, Aug 04, 2013 at 03:37:08PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 02, 2013 at 03:09:34PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 06:25:04AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > > On 07/31/2013 06:17 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> The big problem wit
On Fri, Aug 02, 2013 at 03:09:34PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 06:25:04AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > On 07/31/2013 06:17 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > >>
> > >> The big problem with pvops is that they are a permanent tax on future
> > >> development --
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 06:25:04AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 07/31/2013 06:17 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> >>
> >> The big problem with pvops is that they are a permanent tax on future
> >> development -- a classic case of "the hooks problem." As such it is
> >> important that there
We'll look at them and consider to what degree they are likely to cause issues,
but as Rusty says, it is the red shirt.
UML is also PV of course, but sits in its own corner and we x86 maintainers
very rarely have to do something special to accommodate it.
Rusty Russell wrote:
>Mike Rapoport w
Mike Rapoport writes:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 3:17 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> On 07/31/2013 02:39 AM, Mike Rapoport wrote:
>>>
>>> The use case I had in mind is to use lguest as a nested hypervisor in
>>> public clouds. As of today, major public clouds do not support nested
>>> virtualization
Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
> H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> UML, lguest and Xen were done before the x86 architecture supported
>> hardware virtualization.
>
> [...]
>
>> but on KVM-enabled hardware KVM seems
>> like the better option (and is indeed what libguestfs uses.)
>
> While we're still on th
H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> UML, lguest and Xen were done before the x86 architecture supported
> hardware virtualization.
[...]
> but on KVM-enabled hardware KVM seems
> like the better option (and is indeed what libguestfs uses.)
While we're still on the topic, I'd like a few clarifications. From
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 12:39:23PM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote:
>> There are plenty virtual machines in EC2, Rackspace, HP and other
>> clouds that do not have hardware virtualization. I believe that
>> running a hypervisor on them may be pr
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 12:39:23PM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> There are plenty virtual machines in EC2, Rackspace, HP and other
> clouds that do not have hardware virtualization. I believe that
> running a hypervisor on them may be pretty interesting.
Interesting how?
How interesting is it rea
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 4:19 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 07/31/2013 06:07 AM, Mike Rapoport wrote:
>>>
>>> "We can add a pvops user and that won't change the number of pvops
>>> users" What?!
>>
>> We modify existing pvops user, IMHO. lguest is existing pvops user and
>> my idea was to extend i
On 07/31/2013 06:17 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>>
>> The big problem with pvops is that they are a permanent tax on future
>> development -- a classic case of "the hooks problem." As such it is
>> important that there be a real, significant, use case with enough users
>> to make the pain wor
On 07/31/2013 06:07 AM, Mike Rapoport wrote:
>>
>> "We can add a pvops user and that won't change the number of pvops
>> users" What?!
>
> We modify existing pvops user, IMHO. lguest is existing pvops user and
> my idea was to extend it, rather than add lguest64 alongside lguest32.
>
That is not
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 05:17:35AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 07/31/2013 02:39 AM, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> >
> > The use case I had in mind is to use lguest as a nested hypervisor in
> > public clouds. As of today, major public clouds do not support nested
> > virtualization and it's not cle
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 3:17 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 07/31/2013 02:39 AM, Mike Rapoport wrote:
>>
>> The use case I had in mind is to use lguest as a nested hypervisor in
>> public clouds. As of today, major public clouds do not support nested
>> virtualization and it's not clear at all if
On 07/31/2013 02:39 AM, Mike Rapoport wrote:
>
> The use case I had in mind is to use lguest as a nested hypervisor in
> public clouds. As of today, major public clouds do not support nested
> virtualization and it's not clear at all if they will expose this
> ability in their deployments. Additio
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 4:28 AM, Rusty Russell wrote:
> "H. Peter Anvin" writes:
>> On 07/19/2013 02:06 AM, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I tried building lguest to play with it, but was disappointed to find
>>> this in the Kconfig:
>>>
>>> depends on X86_32
>>>
>>> Why is this [1
"H. Peter Anvin" writes:
> On 07/19/2013 02:06 AM, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I tried building lguest to play with it, but was disappointed to find
>> this in the Kconfig:
>>
>> depends on X86_32
>>
>> Why is this [1]? What is so hard about supporting 64-bit machines? I
>> fou
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 8:46 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 07/19/2013 10:42 AM, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
>> H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>> We want to reduce pvops and pvops users, not increase them...
>>
>> I see. So the future is true virtualization which exposes the
>> underlying hardware, like
On 07/19/2013 10:42 AM, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
> H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> We want to reduce pvops and pvops users, not increase them...
>
> I see. So the future is true virtualization which exposes the
> underlying hardware, like KVM? Why do bare-metal virtualizers like
> Xen employ paravir
H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> We want to reduce pvops and pvops users, not increase them...
I see. So the future is true virtualization which exposes the
underlying hardware, like KVM? Why do bare-metal virtualizers like
Xen employ paravirtualization? Also, where does UML stand?
Thanks.
--
To unsubs
On 07/19/2013 02:06 AM, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I tried building lguest to play with it, but was disappointed to find
> this in the Kconfig:
>
> depends on X86_32
>
> Why is this [1]? What is so hard about supporting 64-bit machines? I
> found a five-year old tree that claims t
Hi,
I tried building lguest to play with it, but was disappointed to find
this in the Kconfig:
depends on X86_32
Why is this [1]? What is so hard about supporting 64-bit machines? I
found a five-year old tree that claims to do lguest64 [2], but didn't
investigate further.
Thanks.
[1]: More
25 matches
Mail list logo
