Re: [Qemu-devel] QEMU: Discussion of separating core functionality vs supportive features

On 04/26/2011 04:14 AM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: Hi, I think that would work well for spice. Spice uses shared memory from the pci device for both the framebuffer and surfaces/commands, but this is Is that the only DMA do you do? That's good for this model. Yes. Spice does both reads and writes

Re: [Qemu-devel] QEMU: Discussion of separating core functionality vs supportive features

Hi, I think that would work well for spice. Spice uses shared memory from the pci device for both the framebuffer and surfaces/commands, but this is Is that the only DMA do you do? That's good for this model. Yes. Spice does both reads and writes though, so a way to tag pages as dirty is

Re: [Qemu-devel] QEMU: Discussion of separating core functionality vs supportive features

On 03/02/11 14:49, Michael Roth wrote: > On 03/02/2011 07:18 AM, Jes Sorensen wrote: >> I think we need two types for sure, even for the video case, we will >> still need a control channel as well. However, I don't think it is >> desirable to split things up more than we have to, so if we can keep

Re: [Qemu-devel] QEMU: Discussion of separating core functionality vs supportive features

On 03/02/2011 07:18 AM, Jes Sorensen wrote: On 03/02/11 14:13, Michael Roth wrote: On 03/02/2011 04:19 AM, Jes Sorensen wrote: It is absolutely vital for me that we do not make things much more complicated for users with this move. I don't want to get into a situation where we start forcing e

Re: [Qemu-devel] QEMU: Discussion of separating core functionality vs supportive features

On 03/02/11 14:13, Michael Roth wrote: > On 03/02/2011 04:19 AM, Jes Sorensen wrote: >> It is absolutely vital for me that we do not make things much more >> complicated for users with this move. I don't want to get into a >> situation where we start forcing external packages or daemons in order >

Re: [Qemu-devel] QEMU: Discussion of separating core functionality vs supportive features

On 03/02/2011 04:19 AM, Jes Sorensen wrote: On 02/28/11 18:44, Anthony Liguori wrote: On Feb 28, 2011 10:44 AM, "Jes Sorensen" wrote: Separating host-side virtagent and other tasks from core QEMU = To improve auditing of the core QEM

Re: [Qemu-devel] QEMU: Discussion of separating core functionality vs supportive features

On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 01:04:58PM +0200, Dor Laor wrote: > On 03/02/2011 12:58 PM, Alon Levy wrote: > >On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 11:25:44AM +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote: > >>On 03/01/11 15:25, Dor Laor wrote: > >>>On 03/01/2011 02:40 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: > > On Mar 1, 2011 7:07 AM, "Dor

Re: [Qemu-devel] QEMU: Discussion of separating core functionality vs supportive features

On 03/02/2011 12:58 PM, Alon Levy wrote: On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 11:25:44AM +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote: On 03/01/11 15:25, Dor Laor wrote: On 03/01/2011 02:40 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: On Mar 1, 2011 7:07 AM, "Dor Laor" Qemu is the one that should spawn them and they should be transparent fr

Re: [Qemu-devel] QEMU: Discussion of separating core functionality vs supportive features

On 03/02/11 11:58, Alon Levy wrote: > On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 11:25:44AM +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote: >> I had a few thoughts about this already, which I think will work for >> both spice and vnc. What we could do is to expose the video memory via >> shared memory. That way a spice or vnc daemon coul

Re: [Qemu-devel] QEMU: Discussion of separating core functionality vs supportive features

On 03/02/11 11:56, Dor Laor wrote: > On 03/02/2011 12:25 PM, Jes Sorensen wrote: >> On 03/01/11 15:25, Dor Laor wrote: >> Using shared memory this way should allow us to implement the video >> clients without performance loss, in fact it should be beneficial since >> it would allow them to run full

Re: [Qemu-devel] QEMU: Discussion of separating core functionality vs supportive features

On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 11:25:44AM +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote: > On 03/01/11 15:25, Dor Laor wrote: > > On 03/01/2011 02:40 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: > >> > >> On Mar 1, 2011 7:07 AM, "Dor Laor" >> > Qemu is the one that should spawn them and they should be transparent > >> from the management. T

Re: [Qemu-devel] QEMU: Discussion of separating core functionality vs supportive features

On 03/02/2011 12:25 PM, Jes Sorensen wrote: On 03/01/11 15:25, Dor Laor wrote: On 03/01/2011 02:40 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: On Mar 1, 2011 7:07 AM, "Dor Laor" Qemu is the one that should spawn them and they should be transparent from the management. This way running qemu stays the same and

Re: [Qemu-devel] QEMU: Discussion of separating core functionality vs supportive features

On 03/02/11 11:42, Dor Laor wrote: > On 03/02/2011 12:28 PM, Jes Sorensen wrote: >> On 03/01/11 15:25, Dor Laor wrote: >>> I agree it is desirable to the this for spice but it is allot more >>> complex than virtagent isolation. Spice is performance sensitive and >>> contains much more state. It nee

Re: [Qemu-devel] QEMU: Discussion of separating core functionality vs supportive features

On 03/02/2011 12:28 PM, Jes Sorensen wrote: On 03/01/11 15:25, Dor Laor wrote: On 03/01/2011 02:40 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: Spice is the logical place to start, no? It's the largest single dependency we have and it does some scary things with qemu_mutex. I would use spice as a way to prove

Re: [Qemu-devel] QEMU: Discussion of separating core functionality vs supportive features

On 03/01/11 15:25, Dor Laor wrote: > On 03/01/2011 02:40 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: >> Spice is the logical place to start, no? It's the largest single >> dependency we have and it does some scary things with qemu_mutex. I >> would use spice as a way to prove the concept. > > I agree it is desir

Re: [Qemu-devel] QEMU: Discussion of separating core functionality vs supportive features

On 03/01/11 15:25, Dor Laor wrote: > On 03/01/2011 02:40 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: >> >> On Mar 1, 2011 7:07 AM, "Dor Laor" > > Qemu is the one that should spawn them and they should be transparent >> from the management. This way running qemu stays the same and qemu just >> need to add the logic

Re: [Qemu-devel] QEMU: Discussion of separating core functionality vs supportive features

On 03/01/11 13:07, Dor Laor wrote: > On 02/28/2011 07:44 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: >> I'm very nervous about having a large number of daemons necessary to run >> QEMU. I think a reasonable approach would be a single front-end daemond. > > s/daemon/son processes/ > Qemu is the one that should spa

Re: [Qemu-devel] QEMU: Discussion of separating core functionality vs supportive features

On 02/28/11 18:44, Anthony Liguori wrote: > On Feb 28, 2011 10:44 AM, "Jes Sorensen" wrote: >> > Separating host-side virtagent and other tasks from core QEMU >> > = >> > >> > To improve auditing of the core QEMU code, it would be ideal t

Re: [Qemu-devel] QEMU: Discussion of separating core functionality vs supportive features

On 03/01/2011 09:25 AM, Dor Laor wrote: On 03/01/2011 02:40 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: On Mar 1, 2011 7:07 AM, "Dor Laor" mailto:dl...@redhat.com>> wrote: > > On 02/28/2011 07:44 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: >> >> >> On Feb 28, 2011 10:44 AM, "Jes Sorensen" mailto:jes.soren...@redhat.com> >>

Re: [Qemu-devel] QEMU: Discussion of separating core functionality vs supportive features

On 03/01/2011 02:40 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: On Mar 1, 2011 7:07 AM, "Dor Laor" mailto:dl...@redhat.com>> wrote: > > On 02/28/2011 07:44 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: >> >> >> On Feb 28, 2011 10:44 AM, "Jes Sorensen" mailto:jes.soren...@redhat.com> >>

Re: [Qemu-devel] QEMU: Discussion of separating core functionality vs supportive features

On Mar 1, 2011 7:07 AM, "Dor Laor" wrote: > > On 02/28/2011 07:44 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: >> >> >> On Feb 28, 2011 10:44 AM, "Jes Sorensen" > > wrote: >> > >> > Hi, >> > >> > On last week's call we discussed the issue of splitting non core >> > features of Q

Re: [Qemu-devel] QEMU: Discussion of separating core functionality vs supportive features

On 02/28/2011 07:44 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: On Feb 28, 2011 10:44 AM, "Jes Sorensen" mailto:jes.soren...@redhat.com>> wrote: > > Hi, > > On last week's call we discussed the issue of splitting non core > features of QEMU into it's own process to reduce the security risks etc. > > I wro

Re: [Qemu-devel] QEMU: Discussion of separating core functionality vs supportive features

On Feb 28, 2011 10:44 AM, "Jes Sorensen" wrote: > > Hi, > > On last week's call we discussed the issue of splitting non core > features of QEMU into it's own process to reduce the security risks etc. > > I wrote up a summary of my thoughts on this to try to cover the various > issues. Feedback wel

[Qemu-devel] QEMU: Discussion of separating core functionality vs supportive features

Hi, On last week's call we discussed the issue of splitting non core features of QEMU into it's own process to reduce the security risks etc. I wrote up a summary of my thoughts on this to try to cover the various issues. Feedback welcome and hopefully we can continue the discussion on a future c