Bugs item #1631252, was opened at 2007-01-09 09:38
Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by Item Submitter
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=893831aid=1631252group_id=180599
Please note that this message will contain a full copy of
Subject: [patch] KVM: add MSR based hypercall API
From: Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
this adds a special MSR based hypercall API to KVM. This is to be used
by paravirtual kernels and virtual drivers.
VMX-only at the moment.
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
drivers/kvm/kvm.h
Subject: [patch] KVM: paravirtual guest support
From: Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
this enables a CONFIG_PARAVIRT Linux guest kernel to establish a
hypercall API to a KVM host. If successfully registered, then the Linux
guest will optimize a few things like its interrupt controller, io-delay
Ingo Molnar wrote:
Subject: [patch] KVM: add MSR based hypercall API
From: Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
this adds a special MSR based hypercall API to KVM. This is to be used
by paravirtual kernels and virtual drivers.
VMX-only at the moment.
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Avi Kivity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
@@ -237,6 +238,8 @@ struct kvm_vcpu {
unsigned long cr0;
unsigned long cr2;
unsigned long cr3;
+struct kvm_vcpu_para_state *para_state;
Do we want this as part of kvm_vcpu or kvm? I can see arguments for
both views.
Ingo Molnar wrote:
ok, i changed this and i added the SVM patch function too. AMD's VMMCALL
is 0x0f, 0x01, 0xd9, correct?
yes.
Where is the vmcall exit handler?
in my tree, have not sent the patch yet - first want to combine it with
the cr3 feature to have it tested.
I'd
* Avi Kivity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Where is the vmcall exit handler?
in my tree, have not sent the patch yet - first want to combine it
with the cr3 feature to have it tested.
I'd like it in the final patch.
yeah. Right now i have:
patches/kvm-paravirt-host.patch
Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Avi Kivity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Where is the vmcall exit handler?
in my tree, have not sent the patch yet - first want to combine it
with the cr3 feature to have it tested.
I'd like it in the final patch.
yeah. Right now i have:
I'm a little unclear on the capabilities (current or planned) of
the new paravirtualisation feature in KVM.
Does running paravirtual guests on KVM still require a
hardware-VM-capable processor, or will it eventually be possible to
run a paravirtualised Linux on an older machine (such as,
Hugo Mills wrote:
I'm a little unclear on the capabilities (current or planned) of
the new paravirtualisation feature in KVM.
Does running paravirtual guests on KVM still require a
hardware-VM-capable processor, or will it eventually be possible to
run a paravirtualised Linux on an
Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Avi Kivity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
well, we can standardize on the 32-bit calling convention: eax, ecx,
edx, ebp, etc. We can do that via the 64-bit asm. So it should be the
same i think - just that a 32-bit guest on a 64-bit host wont be able
to set the high
* Avi Kivity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
so i'd vote for the 64-bit natural register order: return value in
rax, parameters in: rdi, rsi, rdx, rcx, r8, r9. On 32-bit that would
be edi, esi, edx, ecx, ebx, ebp - the last two shuffled into
VCPU_REGS_R8/R9. That's 6 parameters already -
I had originally hoped to get this in for 2.6.20. It now looks like .20
will have a shorter cycle than usual, and the mmu took a bit longer than
expected, so it's more realistic to aim for 2.6.21.
The current kvm userspace interface has several deficiencies:
- open(/dev/kvm) returns a
Can we please avoid adding a ton of new ioctls? ioctls inevitably
require 64-bit compat code for certain architectures, whereas
sysfs/procfs does not.
Jeff
-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
On Tue, 9 Jan 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Can we please avoid adding a ton of new ioctls? ioctls inevitably
require 64-bit compat code for certain architectures, whereas
sysfs/procfs does not.
I guess ioctl is not as important now if the API is now always talking to
one VM.
- James
--
Roland Dreier wrote:
I'm running a 64-bit Fedora 6 install as a guest on a host running
2.6.20-rc4 with the kvm-10 userspace release. The CPU is a Xeon 5160
and I have 6 GB of RAM. The guest is given 512 MB of memory. I left
the guest idle overnight, and the makewhatis cron job seems to have
I've tried out the last few versions of KVM and think it's great. It's
much easier to use and understand than Xen and performance is
surprisingly good.
One of the things I'd like to do is modify it to allow PMI generation
based on the Intel performance counter facilities. Specifically, I'd
like
17 matches
Mail list logo
