|
xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] Re: Pre-virtualization, was Re: linux/arch/xen/i386 or l
Ronald G. Minnich wrote:
On Sat, 21 May 2005, aq wrote:
Joshua, as I understand, this project would be a competitor of Xen?
http://l4hq.org/cvsweb/cvsweb/~checkout~/afterburner/afterburn-wedge/doc/userman.pdf?content-type=application/pdf
for the manual.
You still have to modify the kernel, it seems.
Strictly speaking you should be able to achieve "full virtualization"
with toolchain modifications. Think of the comparision to VMX. VMX
provides exits to call into the hypervisor when certain instructions are
executed that are not virtualization friendly. With pre-virtualization,
you have the compiler pad virtualization unfriendly instructions with
nop's and then at load time, replace all of those unfriendly sequences
with calls to the hypervisor. This way, the same kernel can run on bare
metal or within a hypervisor.
Of course, just as is likely with VMX, you're probably gonna want to do
some hand-tuning of Linux for performance reasons. It seems like
afterburner incorporates these types of optimizations.
I'd really like to see a "pure" form of pre-virtualization that required
no modifications at all to the underlying source tree. Besides being
interesting from an academic standpoint I think it would be highly
useful for support legacy Open Source operating systems.
I'm very excited about this technology. I imagine that you can get all
the benefits of binary-rewriting with less complexity and better
performance (with the only limitation being that you have the source
code for the OS which is fine by me).
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
Are there fewer mods? What is the advantage of this over Xen? I think I'm
missing a key point here.
ron
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
|
|
Home