[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Xen-devel] Re: [RFC, PATCH 0/24] VMI i386 Linux virtualization interface proposal
- To: Zachary Amsden <zach@xxxxxxxxxx>
- From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 10:25:22 +0000
- Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxx>, Joshua LeVasseur <jtl@xxxxxxxxxx>, Xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Pratap Subrahmanyam <pratap@xxxxxxxxxx>, Wim Coekaerts <wim.coekaerts@xxxxxxxxxx>, Chris Wright <chrisw@xxxxxxxx>, Jack Lo <jlo@xxxxxxxxxx>, Dan Hecht <dhecht@xxxxxxxxxx>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>, Christopher Li <chrisl@xxxxxxxxxx>, Virtualization Mailing List <virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxx>, Leendert van Doorn <leendert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Anne Holler <anne@xxxxxxxxxx>, Jyothy Reddy <jreddy@xxxxxxxxxx>, Kip Macy <kmacy@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Ky Srinivasan <ksrinivasan@xxxxxxxxxx>, Dan Arai <arai@xxxxxxxxxx>, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 10:30:06 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
- Mail-followup-to: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Zachary Amsden <zach@xxxxxxxxxx>, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxx>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Virtualization Mailing List <virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxx>, Dan Hecht <dhecht@xxxxxxxxxx>, Dan Arai <arai@xxxxxxxxxx>, Anne Holler <anne@xxxxxxxxxx>, Pratap Subrahmanyam <pratap@xxxxxxxxxx>, Christopher Li <chrisl@xxxxxxxxxx>, Joshua LeVasseur <jtl@xxxxxxxxxx>, Chris Wright <chrisw@xxxxxxxx>, Rik Van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxx>, Jyothy Reddy <jreddy@xxxxxxxxxx>, Jack Lo <jlo@xxxxxxxxxx>, Kip Macy <kmacy@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>, Ky Srinivasan <ksrinivasan@xxxxxxxxxx>, Wim Coekaerts <wim.coekaerts@xxxxxxxxxx>, Leendert van Doorn <leendert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 10:22:15AM -0800, Zachary Amsden wrote:
> >Why can't vmware use the Xen interface instead?
> >
>
> We could. But it is our opinion that the Xen interface is unnecessarily
> complicated, without a clean separation between the layer of interaction
> with the hypervisor and the kernel proper. The interface we propose we
> believe is more powerful, and more conducive to performance
> optimizations while providing significant advantages - most
> specifically, a single binary image that is properly virtualizable on
> multiple hypervisors and capable of running on native hardware.
I agree with Zach here, the Xen hypervisor <-> kernel interface is
not very nice. This proposal seems like a step forward althogh it'll
probably need to go through a few iterations. Without and actually
useable opensource hypevisor reference implementation it's totally
unacceptable, though.
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
