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-users

[Xen-users] Re: Xen is a feature

To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Xen-users] Re: Xen is a feature
From: Bill Davidsen <davidsen@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 15:49:44 -0400
Cc: ksrinivasan <ksrinivasan@xxxxxxxxxx>, "jeremy@xxxxxxxx" <jeremy@xxxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "wimcoekaerts@xxxxxxxxxxxx" <wimcoekaerts@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "gregkh@xxxxxxx" <gregkh@xxxxxxx>, George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "kurt.hackel@xxxxxxxxxx" <kurt.hackel@xxxxxxxxxx>, "x86@xxxxxxxxxx" <x86@xxxxxxxxxx>, Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ian Pratt <Ian.Pratt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Stephen Spector <stephen.spector@xxxxxxxxxx>, "avi@xxxxxxxxxx" <avi@xxxxxxxxxx>, "EAnderson@xxxxxxxxxx" <EAnderson@xxxxxxxxxx>, jens.axboe@xxxxxxxxxx, "mingo@xxxxxxx" <mingo@xxxxxxx>, "torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 02:17:35 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0905311607560.3379@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen user discussion <xen-users.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-users@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-users>, <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-users>, <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Newsgroups: gmane.comp.emulators.xen.devel, gmane.comp.emulators.xen.user
References: <162f4c90-6431-4a2a-b337-6d7451d7b11e@default> <20090528001350.GD26820@xxxxxxx> <4A1F302E.8030501@xxxxxxxx> <20090528.210559.137121893.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4A1FCE8E.2060604@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <alpine.LFD.2.00.0905311607560.3379@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.21) Gecko/20090507 Fedora/1.1.16-1.fc9 pango-text SeaMonkey/1.1.16
Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Fri, 29 May 2009, George Dunlap wrote:
David Miller wrote:
I don't see Ingo's comments, whether I agree with them or not, as
an implication of Xen being niche.  Rather I see his comments as
an opposition to how Xen is implemented.
It's in his definition of "improving Linux".  Jeremy is saying that allowing
Linux to run as dom0 *is* improving Linux.  The lack of dom0 support is at
this moment making life more difficult for a huge number of Linux users who

Exactly that's the point. Adding dom0 makes life easier for a group of
users who decided to use Xen some time ago, but what Ingo wants is
technical improvement of the kernel.

There are many features which have been wildly used in the distro
world where developers tried to push support into the kernel with the
same line of arguments.

The kernel policy always was and still is to accept only those
features which have a technical benefit to the code base.

I'm just picking a few examples:

Aside of the paravirt, which seems to expand through arch/x86 like a
hydra, the new patches sprinkle "if (xen_...)" all over the
place. These extra xen dependencies are no improvement, they are a
royal pain in the ... They are sticky once they got merged simply
because the hypervisor relies on them and we need to provide
compatibility for a long time.

Wait, let's not classify something as "no improvement" when you mean "I don't need it." The fact that processors without hardware VM can run virtual machines is a non-trivial benefit for many users, and in future embedded applications, where both hvm and 64 bit capability may not justify their power requirements. And the improved PV performance over full virtualization is an improvement, even though it certainly isn't night and day.

Having replace some systems with new hardware just so I could use KVM does not make me forget that I used xen for some time, and that PV is still a savings, even with the latest hardware.

Let's stick to technical issues, and not deny that there are a number of users who really will have expanded capability. The technical points are valid, but as a former and probable future xen (CentOS) user, so are the benefits.

--
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@xxxxxxx>
  "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked."  - from Slashdot

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