On 2012-07-24 10:54, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 24 July 2012 09:50, Avi Kivity <avi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 07/23/2012 08:58 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: >>> The other related thing that >>> might be surprising for x86-background people is that being >>> able to present the guest with a virtual CPU that looks like >>> a pre-virtualization CPU (eg the A9) isn't really an intended >>> use case either. (The ARM world has much less of the 'everything >>> must be fully backwards compatible for existing OSes' than x86...) >> >> I expect this to change once ARM servers become a reality. > > Yes, compatibility for guests migrating forwards from old > virt-supporting host CPUs to new ones is important; it's > only the pre-virt to post-virt that is less interesting. One of the many use cases for virtualization on other archs is precisely this (we run 286 code on latest and greatest CPUs in KVM). There should be quite a few embedded systems out there that could happily be consolidated on a more modern and powerful ARM platform via virtualization. Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RTC ITP SDP-DE Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux -- 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
