WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

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/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

RE: [Xen-devel] Fwd: [PATCH 0/18] Nested Virtualization: Overview

To: Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Tim Deegan <Tim.Deegan@xxxxxxxxxx>, Christoph Egger <Christoph.Egger@xxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] Fwd: [PATCH 0/18] Nested Virtualization: Overview
From: "Dong, Eddie" <eddie.dong@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 10:07:37 +0800
Accept-language: en-US
Acceptlanguage: en-US
Cc: "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Dong, Eddie" <eddie.dong@xxxxxxxxx>, "He, Qing" <qing.he@xxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 19:12:16 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <C7EE61F8.1182A%keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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: <20100416102711.GA31304@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <C7EE61F8.1182A%keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: AcrdT3z3QwYdxtByT0SYQk8Ao0nUxwAPdIaiAKexfWA=
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] Fwd: [PATCH 0/18] Nested Virtualization: Overview
Keir Fraser wrote:
> On 16/04/2010 11:27, "Tim Deegan" <Tim.Deegan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>>> Please read the XenNestedHVM.pdf paper, particularly the section
>>> "Software Architecture". This describes how this is made to be
>>> generic and what needs to be done to adapt to Intel.
>> 
>> 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. :)
> 
> I don't see any good argument for it either. I.e., I don't think we
> care about migrating between AMD and Intel hosts with nestedhvm
> enabled, which I think would be the only argument for it. I know we
> added support for cross-emulating SYSENTER and SYSCALL, but that's
> needed for cross-migration of any 64-bit guest running compat-mode
> apps (i.e., really need to make cross-migration possible at all). I'm
> sceptical enough of the utility of cross-vendor migration *at all*,
> let alone supporting in tandem with advanced features also of dubious
> utility (at least in enterprise space), like nestedhvm.
> 

Although SVM on VMX is possible in theory, I doutb on the feasibility given 
that there are many semantics difference between VMCB & VMCS, which will 
eventually have to be emulated with extra complexity.
Qing will post his natural VMX on VMX patch this week, base on his Xen summit 
talk on http://www.xen.org/files/xensummit_intel09/xensummit-nested-virt.pdf :) 
We can have next level of discussion/comparation then.
BTW, If somebody has implemented SVM on VMX solution already, we can have 
performance comparation between 2 approaches to assist the discussion.

Thx, Eddie

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel