[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.
    Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
    >> 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.
    > That would be crazy.

    Not necessarily, although the example above is extreme. Redundant
    interfaces is the norm in an evolving platform.

    >> Or are you suggesting that multiple interfaces be _available_ to
    >> guests at runtime but the guest chooses one of them?
    > Right, that's what I've been suggesting. I think hypervisors should
    > be able to offer multiple ABIs to guests, but a guest has to commit to
    > using one exclusively (ie, once they start to use one then the others
    > turn themselves off, kill the domain, etc).

    Not inherently. Of course, there may be interfaces which are interently
    or by policy mutually exclusive, but a hypervisor should only export the
    interfaces it wants a guest to be able to use.

    This is particularly so with CPUID, which is a *data export* interface,
    it doesn't perform any action.


     \ /
      Last update: 2008-10-08 01:53    [W:0.020 / U:76.704 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site