Re: Should KVM_GUEST stop depending on PARAVIRT?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 6:59 AM, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> On 24/07/2015 19:33, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> PARAVIRT adds a fair amount of bloat and, AFAICT, KVM_GUEST doesn't
>> really need any of it.  Would it make sense to drop the dependency?
>
> I think the main reason for PARAVIRT is that pv kernels have by default
>
>         .read_msr = native_read_msr_safe,
>         .write_msr = native_write_msr_safe,
>
> Unfortunately Intel adds a bunch of performance measurement features
> saying that "they work with this cpuid family/model/stepping" and at the
> same time attach them to some non-architectural MSRs that, in principle
> could be reused for something else years down the road.  This is not a
> huge problem for Windows, where only tools such as vTune use these MSRs,
> but it is a problem for Linux.
>
> The alternative is ignore_msrs, but that's a very big hammer too.

I think I'm missing something.  Does KVM_GUEST hook read_msr and
write_msr?  I don't see it.

Xen certainly needs those hooks, but I don't see why KVM would.

--Andy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]
  Powered by Linux