lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Sep]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Use CPUID to communicate with the hypervisor.
Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>>>
>> Unless there is a central authority assigning these, "we" can do all
>> we want, enough people will not pay attention.
>>
>> Basically, there needs to be a standards document that describes the
>> architecture, *and* needs to either have universal buy-in with all the
>> vendors or imposed by an authority with enough clout to do so (Intel
>> might.)
>
> I think using fixed offsets is unwise, since there's already contention
> for the same leaves. Making sure that each block of leaves (where a
> block is 16, 256 or some other number of leaves) is self-describing via
> ABI signatures is the only sane way to go. There's still the issue of
> assigning ABI signatures to vendors, but that's 1) less of an issue, and
> 2) can be self-assigned with very low likelihood of collision. That way
> a guest can scan that region of leaf space for ABI signatures it
> understand, and can pick and choose among what it finds (but not mix and
> match - that sounds like a course for disaster).

If you can't mix and match, there is no point, since very likely all
hypervisors will have at least some unique information.

> If we use such a scheme, we can 1) avoid any existing users of that
> space, 2) cleanly delimit a hypervisor-agnostic ABI portion of the leaf
> space, and 3) allow hypervisors to implement multiple ABIs at once.

Yes, see my previous "half-baked" sketch.

-hpa



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-09-29 23:57    [W:0.113 / U:0.372 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site