[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <kteepb$8qf$1@ger.gmane.org>
Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2013 13:04:22 +0000
From: Alex Elsayed <eternaleye@...il.com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [QUERY] lguest64
Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
> H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> UML, lguest and Xen were done before the x86 architecture supported
>> hardware virtualization.
>
> [...]
>
>> but on KVM-enabled hardware KVM seems
>> like the better option (and is indeed what libguestfs uses.)
>
> While we're still on the topic, I'd like a few clarifications. From
> your reply, I got the impression that KVM the only mechanism for
> non-pvops virtualization. This seems quite contrary to what I read on
> lwn about ARM virtualization [1]. In short, ARM provides a "hypervisor
> mode", and the article says
>
> "the virtualization model provided by ARM fits the Xen
> hypervisor-based virtualization better than KVM's kernel-based model"
>
> The Xen people call this "ARM PVH" (as opposed to ARM PV, which does
> not utilize hardware extensions) [2]. Although I wasn't able to find
> much information about the hardware aspect, what ARM provides seems to
> be quite different from VT-x and AMD-V. I'm also confused about what
> virt/kvm/arm is.
>
> Thanks.
>
> [1]: http://lwn.net/Articles/513940/
> [2]: http://www.xenproject.org/developers/teams/arm-hypervisor.html
ARM's virtualization extensions may be a more *natural* match to Xen's
semantics and architecture, but that doesn't mean that KVM can't use it. LWN
explains the details far better than I can: https://lwn.net/Articles/557132/
virt/kvm/arm is an implementation of KVM (the API) that takes advantage of
ARM's virtualization extensions.
--
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