Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Nakajima, Jun wrote:
> > > > one. Start the kvm leaves at 0x40001000 or something?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Yeah, that works with me.
> > >
> >
> > To me this is the beginning of fragmentation. Why do we need
different
> > and VMM-specific Linux paravirtualization for hardware-assisted
> > virtualization? That would not be good for Linux.
> >
>
> On the contrary. Xen already has a hypercall interface, and we need
to
> keep supporting it. If we were to also support a vmm-independent
> interface (aka "kvm interface"), then we need to be able to do that in
> parallel. If we have a cpuid leaf clash, then its impossible to do
so;
> if we define the new interface to be disjoint from other current users
> of cpuid, then we can support them concurrently.
>
> J
Today, 3 CPUID leaves starting from 0x4000_0000 are defined in a generic
fashion (hypervisor detection, version, and hypercall page), and those
are the ones used by Xen today. We should extend those leaves (e.g.
starting from 0x4000_0003) for the vmm-independent features as well.
If Xen needs additional Xen-specific features, we need to allocate some
leaves for those (e.g. 0x4000_1000)
Jun
---
Intel Open Source Technology Center
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
