[lkml]   [2008]   [Oct]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC] CPUID usage for interaction between Hypervisors and Linux.
Nakajima, Jun wrote:
> On 10/3/2008 5:35:39 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> Nakajima, Jun wrote:
>>> What's the significance of supporting multiple interfaces to the
>>> same guest simultaneously, i.e. _runtime_? We don't want the guests
>>> to run on such a literarily Frankenstein machine. And practically,
>>> such testing/debugging would be good only for Halloween :-).
>> By that notion, EVERY CPU currently shipped is a "Frankenstein" CPU,
>> since at very least they export Intel-derived and AMD-derived interfaces.
>> This is in other words, a ridiculous claim.
> The big difference here is that you could create a VM at runtime (by combining the existing interfaces) that did not exist before (or was not tested before). For example, a hypervisor could show hyper-v, osx-v (if any), linux-v, etc., and a guest could create a VM with hyper-v MMU, osx-v interrupt handling, Linux-v timer, etc. And such combinations/variations can grow exponentially.
> Or are you suggesting that multiple interfaces be _available_ to guests at runtime but the guest chooses one of them?

The guest chooses what it wants to use. We already do this: for
example, we use CPUID leaf 0x80000006 preferentially to CPUID leaf 2,
simply because it is a better interface.

And you're absolutely right that the guest may end up picking and
choosing different parts of the interfaces. That's how it is supposed
to work.


 \ /
  Last update: 2008-10-08 00:43    [W:0.084 / U:7.204 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site