On 29.06.2011, at 13:53, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 08:41:03PM +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote:
>> Documentation/virtual/kvm/api.txt | 35
>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> arch/powerpc/include/asm/kvm.h | 15 +++++++++++++++
>> arch/powerpc/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 1 +
>> arch/powerpc/kvm/powerpc.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> include/linux/kvm.h | 1 +
>> 5 files changed, 80 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/virtual/kvm/api.txt
>> b/Documentation/virtual/kvm/api.txt
>> index b0e4b9c..3ab012c 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/virtual/kvm/api.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/virtual/kvm/api.txt
>> @@ -1430,6 +1430,41 @@ is supported; 2 if the processor requires all virtual
>> machines to have
>> an RMA, or 1 if the processor can use an RMA but doesn't require it,
>> because it supports the Virtual RMA (VRMA) facility.
>>
>> +4.64 KVM_PPC_SET_PLATFORM
>> +
>> +Capability: none
>> +Architectures: powerpc
>> +Type: vm ioctl
>> +Parameters: struct kvm_ppc_set_platform (in)
>> +Returns: 0, or -1 on error
>> +
>> +This is used by userspace to tell KVM what sort of platform it should
>> +emulate. The return value of the ioctl tells userspace whether the
>> +emulation it is requesting is supported by KVM.
>> +
>> +struct kvm_ppc_set_platform {
>> + __u16 platform; /* defines the OS/hypervisor ABI */
>> + __u16 guest_arch; /* e.g. decimal 206 for v2.06 */
>> + __u32 flags;
>> +};
>> +
>> +/* Values for platform */
>> +#define KVM_PPC_PV_NONE 0 /* bare-metal,
>> non-paravirtualized */
>> +#define KVM_PPC_PV_KVM 1 /* as defined in kvm_para.h */
>> +#define KVM_PPC_PV_SPAPR 2 /* IBM Server PAPR (a la PowerVM) */
>> +
>> +/* Values for flags */
>> +#define KVM_PPC_CROSS_ARCH 1 /* guest architecture != host */
>> +
>> +The KVM_PPC_CROSS_ARCH bit being 1 indicates that the guest is of a
>> +sufficiently different architecture to the host that the guest cannot
>> +be permitted to use supervisor mode. For example, if the host is a
>> +64-bit machine and the guest is a 32-bit machine, then this bit should
>> +be set.
>
> This makes me wonder if a similar thing might eventually be usable for
> running an i686 or x32 guest on an x86_64 KVM host. I have no idea if
> that is even theoretically possible, but if it is it might be better to
> rename the ioctl to be architecture agnostic.
On x86 this is not required unless we want to "virtualize" pre-CPUID CPUs.
Everything as of Pentium has a full bitmap of feature capabilities that KVM
gets from user space, including information such as "Can we do 64-bit mode?".
Alex
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
