lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Sep]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRE: [kvm-devel] [PATCH] Refactor hypercall infrastructure
Date
From
Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Nakajima, Jun wrote:
> > > > one. Start the kvm leaves at 0x40001000 or something?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Yeah, that works with me.
> > >
> >
> > To me this is the beginning of fragmentation. Why do we need
different
> > and VMM-specific Linux paravirtualization for hardware-assisted
> > virtualization? That would not be good for Linux.
> >
>
> On the contrary. Xen already has a hypercall interface, and we need
to
> keep supporting it. If we were to also support a vmm-independent
> interface (aka "kvm interface"), then we need to be able to do that in
> parallel. If we have a cpuid leaf clash, then its impossible to do
so;
> if we define the new interface to be disjoint from other current users
> of cpuid, then we can support them concurrently.
>
> J

Today, 3 CPUID leaves starting from 0x4000_0000 are defined in a generic
fashion (hypervisor detection, version, and hypercall page), and those
are the ones used by Xen today. We should extend those leaves (e.g.
starting from 0x4000_0003) for the vmm-independent features as well.

If Xen needs additional Xen-specific features, we need to allocate some
leaves for those (e.g. 0x4000_1000)

Jun
---
Intel Open Source Technology Center
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-09-15 02:13    [W:0.170 / U:0.352 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site