From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Zachary Amsden <zamsden@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: Nested SVM and migration
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 06:42:57 -1000
Message-ID: <4B82B411.7020907@redhat.com>
References: <4B80347E.7000003@redhat.com> <20100220201822.GG20833@8bytes.org> <4B806FB9.20009@redhat.com> <20100221121008.GI20833@8bytes.org> <4B8125E2.8050309@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
	Joerg Roedel <joerg.roedel@amd.com>, kvm <kvm@vger.kernel.org>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:42058 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1752264Ab0BVQnD (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 22 Feb 2010 11:43:03 -0500
In-Reply-To: <4B8125E2.8050309@redhat.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On 02/21/2010 02:24 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 02/21/2010 02:10 PM, Joerg Roedel wrote:
>
>> It is doable but I still think its
>> complicated to get this right. The simplest approach would be to
>> disallow migration when the vcpu is running in guest mode.
>
> Agree, though I dislike the need to introduce a "force vmexit" ioctl.
>

How can this possibly work for guests which never exit SVM?  They can 
never be migrated.

Zach