Anthony Liguori wrote:
Avi Kivity wrote:
Example: SMP.
There was no KVM support in QEMU at the time when SMP was introduced.
Had there been, I see no reason not to do it in upstream QEMU.
Marcelo's been working on getting iothread (needed for smp) into qemu
for a while. It will take still more time. All this with the previous
implementation available.
In contrast, initial smp support was hacked into kvm-userspace in a few
days. Sure we didn't have an iothread (vcpu 0 did all the work) and it
was horribly ugly and buggy, but we got the feature out for testing and
got feedback, not only on the userspace bits, but also on the kernel
bits which were new.
Going through qemu would have delayed the work significantly, as well as
slowed down kernel development.
Example: vlan API.
You'll have to be more specific. Do you mean the up coming vlan API
refactoring? That absolutely should be happening in upstream QEMU.
The refactoring, absolutely. But if I have kernel support for zero copy
tomorrow, do I wait until qemu completes refactoring the VLAN API, or do
I hack something in so I can test it and get the benefit to users?
As long as people are using kvm-userspace.git instead of qemu.git,
we're failing IMHO. If kvm-userspace.git is basically the
equivalent of the x86 git kernel tree, linux-next, or something like
that, then that's a good thing.
That's definitely a long term goal, but qemu is not yet at a point
where it is easy to implement new features efficiently. Once it
reaches that state, kvm-userspace will become a simple staging ground
(or even disappear entirely).
The simple fact is that right now, Fedora ships kvm-userspace and
calls it QEMU. It builds packages for non-KVM enabled boards. There
is a very large userspace that consumes packages derived from
kvm-userspace. Like it or not, kvm-userspace is not an experimental
staging ground for QEMU.
It depends on how fast qemu development is. If everything took no time,
sure, but that is not the case.
The only reasonable things to do IMHO is for as much as humanly
possible to be deferred to QEMU or for you to comes to terms with your
role as a defacto QEMU maintainer and start pushing back more on patch
sets that don't take into consideration TCG/non-KVM environments :-)
I do that whenever possible -- and it most often is possible.
But neither kvm nor tcg are not going to be supersets of the other. Of
course qemu is not a subset of kvm as it has a much wider target/host
variety. But also kvm will always have features that tcg does not
have. For example AVX is easy to implement with a few lines in the
kernel and qemu, but would take a massive effort in tcg. It would have
a large performance impact for AVX-enabled apps/guests/hosts
combinations, not so much for tcg.
kvm wants features for large-scale production deployment. This means
focus on performance and managebility. qemu/tcg is more for hobbyist
use or as a developer tool for developing operating system kernels.
This means more focus on ease of use.
MCE is a perfect example of something that really has no reason to go
in via kvm-userspace since we have enough KVM support in upstream QEMU.
I agree. But the requirement that everything in kvm have a counterpart
in tcg is not realistic. The primary use of MCE for example is used to
allow a guest to survive bad hardware. I don't see this as being useful
in any way on qemu/tcg. A secondary is is to debug mce handling in
guests OSes; now this is useful with tcg, but I'd hesitate to call it a
requirement, it's more of a nice to have.
--
Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic.
--
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
