Thank you! BTW, TCG also has two backends implemention, 1. Native host arch tranlation. and 2. TCI byte code interpreter. The difference is that the first one will tranlation the target arch code to host arch instrtions and then executed in host cpu. but the latter is a high level interperation. compare these two backends, Are there any capability difference on the system emulation about the two backends? thank you.
At 2024-06-24 16:57:40, "Alex Bennée" <alex.ben...@linaro.org> wrote: >tugouxp <13824125...@163.com> writes: > >> Hello folks: >> I have a puzzle on qemu major two emuation implentions on whole system >> emulation, that is ,except the emuation speed, >> did the TCG work mode has any weakness than "KVM" work mode on whole system >> emulations(including kernek and >> user-space)? > >It depends on the guest architecture. Some are more complete than >others. The x86 emulation for example doesn't cover all the modern x86 >extensions although there have been some improvements to its vector >handling recently. > >One thing TCG can do that KVM can't is emulate code running at higher >priority than kernel-mode. For example for ARM we can emulate the >EL3/Root domain and secure and confidential realms. In KVM you can only >run a guest EL1 kernel and its user space. > >> is there any work that kvm can do but TCG cant? >> >> of course kvm is much faster than TCG, but my question just about the >> funtion, not care about speed. >> >> thanks for your kindly help! >> BRs >> zilong. > >-- >Alex Bennée >Virtualisation Tech Lead @ Linaro
