On 10/28/2010 02:50 PM, Ian Molton wrote:
On 28/10/10 15:43, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 10/28/2010 09:24 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 10/28/2010 01:54 PM, Ian Molton wrote:
True, but then all that would prove is that I can write a spec to
match the code.
It would also allow us to check that the spec matches the
requirements. Those two steps are easier than checking that the code
matches the requirements.
There was no formal spec for this. The code was written to replace
nasty undefined-instruction based data transport hacks in the (already
existing) GL passthrough code.
I'm extremely sceptical of any GL passthrough proposal. There have
literally been half a dozen over the years and they never seem to leave
proof-of-concept phase. My (limited) understanding is that it's a
fundamentally hard problem that no one has adequately solved yet.
The code in this case has been presented as a patch to qemu nearly 3
years ago. I've taken the patches and refactored them to use virtio
rather than an undefined instruction (which fails under KVM, unlike my
approach).
Its in use testing meego images and seems to be fairly reliable. it
can handle compositing window managers, games, video, etc. We're
currently supporting OpenGL 1.4 including shaders.
A specifically matters an awful lot less than an explanation of how the
problem is being solved in a robust fashion such that it can be reviewed
by people with a deeper understanding of the problem space.
I'm not sure there is a way to prevent nefarious tasks upsetting the
hosts OpenGL with carefully crafted strings of commands, short of
inspecting every single command, which is insane.
Really this needs to be done at a lower level by presenting a virtual
GPU to the guest OS but I am not in a position to code that right now.
The code as it is is useful, and can always be superceeded by a
virtual GPU implementation in future.
At least this breaks the chicken / egg cycle of people wanting GL
support on virtual machines, but not writing stuff to take advantage
of it because the support isn't there. its also a neatly encapsulated
solution - if you dont want people to have access to the passthrough,
simply tell qemu not to present the virtio-gl device to the guest, via
qemus existing commandline options.
If this code was invasive to qemus core, I'd say 'no way' but its just
not. and as the GL device is versioned, we can keep using it even if
the passthrough is replaced by a virtual GPU.
The virtio-gl implementation is basically duplicating virtio-serial. It
looks like ti creates a totally separate window for the GL session.
In the current form, is there really any advantage to having the code in
QEMU? It could just as easily live outside of QEMU.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
