* Nakajima, Jun <jun.nakajima@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I think a KVM Linux would benefit more from paravirt ops, rather than > VMI. The higher-level interface such as the one in Xen, espeically for > I/O, interrupt controllers, timer, SMP, etc. actually simplifies the > implementation of the VMM, and improve performance of the guest. Even > for MMU, direct page tables, for example, would work better for > hardware-based virtualization because the processor can use the native > page tables. maybe we are talking past each other because i dont really disagree with that: i mentioned it right at beginning that higher-level APIs would have to be added to VMI. What i'd like to avoid is the ABI duplication for the lowlevel stuff /and/ for the highlevel stuff. Since VMI is mostly about lowlevel stuff right now it's obvious that it would have to grow more highlevel ops. Doing an IO driver via IO emulation is obviously pretty ... low-tech. maybe i shouldnt call it 'VMI' but 'the paravirt ABI'. I dont mind if it's the Xen ABI or the VMWare ABI or a mesh of the two - everyone can map their own internals to that /one/ ABI. Ingo _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
