[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4612B303.5000109@zytor.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 13:03:15 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
CC: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntrae@...ibm.com>,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Virtualization Mailing List <virtualization@...ts.osdl.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
mathiasen@...il.com
Subject: Re: A set of "standard" virtual devices?
Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>
> Yes, and that's the core of the Xen netfront. But is there really much
> code which can be shared between different hypervisors? When you get
> down to it, all the real code is hypervisor-specific stuff for setting
> up ringbuffers and dealing with interrupts. Like all the other network
> drivers.
>
One thing, Jeremy, which I think is being a bit misleading here: you're
focusing on big, performance-critical stuff. Those things are going to
be the ones which has the most win to implement in hypervisor-specific
ways. Although we can offer models for some hypervisors (and G-d knows
there are enough implementations out there of virtual disk which are
almost identical), they're clearly not going to be universal.
However, there are other things; console is some, or my original
example, which was random number generation. For those, the benefit of
unification is proportionally greater, simply because the win of
anything hypervisor-specific is much smaller.
-hpa
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists