[lkml]   [2006]   [Oct]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/7] KVM: Kernel-based Virtual Machine
Alan Cox wrote:
> Ar Sul, 2006-10-22 am 10:37 +0200, ysgrifennodd Avi Kivity:
>> I like this. Since we plan to support multiple vcpus per vm, the fs
>> structure might look like:
> Three times the syscall overhead is bad for an emulation very bad

Why? You would usually just call kvm_run(). get/set regs are not needed

> for an
> emulation of a CPU whose virtualisation is half baked.

Blood rare. The thing can't even virtualize the first instruction executed.

>> It's certainly a lot more code though, and requires new syscalls. Since
>> this is a little esoteric does it warrant new syscalls?
> I think not - ioctl exists to avoid adding a billion esoteric one user
> syscalls. The idea of a VFS sysfs type view of the running vm is great
> for tools however so I wouldn't throw it out entirely or see it as ioctl
> versus fs.

I still want a separate object per vcpu:

kvm_fd = open("/dev/kvm")
for (i = 0; i < n; ++i)
vcpu_fds[i] = ioctl(kvm_fd, KVM_CREATE_VCPU, i)

so the refcounting doesn't bounce cachelines too much. In effect it's a
mini filesystem.

error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2006-10-23 09:45    [W:0.077 / U:71.136 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site