This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
Home Products Support Community News


[Xen-devel] Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 00/10] xen: pv domain support.

To: Alexander Graf <agraf@xxxxxxx>
Subject: [Xen-devel] Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 00/10] xen: pv domain support.
From: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 09:10:50 +0200
Cc: qemu-devel <qemu-devel@xxxxxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Avi Kivity <avi@xxxxxxxxxx>, Laurent Vivier <Laurent@xxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 00:11:22 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <803692EA-B562-4D41-A809-7EF552180B8F@xxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <1238621982-18333-1-git-send-email-kraxel@xxxxxxxxxx> <1238706878.5426.1.camel@Quad> <49D6708D.4000601@xxxxxxxxxx> <88ADCEFD-E057-4264-8447-9E53A661B35D@xxxxxxx> <49D87044.3030406@xxxxxxxxxx> <803692EA-B562-4D41-A809-7EF552180B8F@xxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Thunderbird (X11/20090320)
Alexander Graf wrote:
> 1) Migration path. If you could already use KVM on a Xen host, you could
> have Xen PV guests and KVM guests in parallel, easing migration to KVM
> for customers.

I still plan to make xenner handle that use case.
You can also run xen inside kvm via nested svm.

> 2) Alternative to HVM. That's how this came up from Gerd's mail. We do
> have KVM support in upstream qemu, but we don't have Xen HVM support.
> That way you could use the same binary for all your needs. Admittedly,
> it might make more sense to just implement HVM support :-).

HVM is more difficuilt.  Xen considers the tools <-> hypervisor
interface private, i.e. it is a moving target.  For PV this isn't a big
issue as there is little reason to actually change something.  HVM
usually has quite a few changes from release to release though, due to
emulation changes/improvements and other reasons.


Xen-devel mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>