 Home |
Products |
Support |
Community |
News |
xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] Fwd: [PATCH 0/18] Nested Virtualization: Overview
| To: | Joerg Roedel <joro@xxxxxxxxxx>, Tim Deegan <Tim.Deegan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [Xen-devel] Fwd: [PATCH 0/18] Nested Virtualization: Overview |
| From: | Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sun, 18 Apr 2010 18:52:30 +0100 |
| Cc: | Christoph Egger <Christoph.Egger@xxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Qing He <qing.he@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Delivery-date: | Sun, 18 Apr 2010 10:53:25 -0700 |
| Envelope-to: | www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20100417114320.GC23260@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| 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> |
| Sender: | xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| Thread-index: | AcrfGStPQqsvbq8KQsG9zHkv8L5I1AABr7rg |
| Thread-topic: | [Xen-devel] Fwd: [PATCH 0/18] Nested Virtualization: Overview |
| User-agent: | Microsoft-Entourage/12.24.0.100205 |
On 17/04/2010 12:43, "Joerg Roedel" <joro@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Your PDFs suggest that even on Intel CPUs, the nested hypervisor should >> always see SVM, not VMX. You shouldn't be surprised or offended if that >> isn't popular with Intel. :) > > Well, it would make sense for Intel too virtualize SVM because it > doesn't has the performance issues with lots and lots of emulated > vmread/vmwrite instructions that cause vmexits in the nested case. The > bigger problem with SVM on VMX is that it could never be complete > because afaik VMX has fewer intercepts than SVM. I don't think either VMX-on-SVM or SVM-on-VMX should be an aim. I mean, we'd have to completely emulate the underlying Intel processor, say, as AMD, to ensure SVM code paths get taken in the guest kernel/hypervisor. It's not really on. -- Keir _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 0 of 5] Add credit2 scheduler (EXPERIMENTAL), Dulloor |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [Xen-devel] libgmp.a error while compiling Xen 3.4, ilish ilish |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [Xen-devel] Fwd: [PATCH 0/18] Nested Virtualization: Overview, Joerg Roedel |
| Next by Thread: | [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xend: fix best NUMA node allocation, Andre Przywara |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
