[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0B53E02A2965CE4F9ADB38B34501A3A15DE4F934@orsmsx505.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 15:30:10 -0700
From: "Nakajima, Jun" <jun.nakajima@...el.com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
CC: "akataria@...are.com" <akataria@...are.com>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
"avi@...hat.com" <avi@...hat.com>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Daniel Hecht <dhecht@...are.com>,
Zach Amsden <zach@...are.com>,
"virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org"
<virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [RFC] CPUID usage for interaction between Hypervisors and Linux.
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?
> -hpa
>
.
Jun Nakajima | Intel Open Source Technology Center
Powered by blists - more mailing lists