From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Anthony Liguori Subject: Re: KVM call minutes for Sept 21 Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 13:03:55 -0500 Message-ID: <4C9A450B.903@codemonkey.ws> References: <20100921180506.GI28009@x200.localdomain> <20100922000438.GA2844@fermat.math.technion.ac.il> <20100922014841.GP28009@x200.localdomain> <20100922174943.GB12492@fermat.math.technion.ac.il> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Chris Wright , kvm@vger.kernel.org, avi@redhat.com To: Nadav Har'El Return-path: Received: from mail-qw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.216.46]:60834 "EHLO mail-qw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753586Ab0IVSE3 (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Sep 2010 14:04:29 -0400 Received: by qwh6 with SMTP id 6so596793qwh.19 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 11:04:28 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20100922174943.GB12492@fermat.math.technion.ac.il> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 09/22/2010 12:49 PM, Nadav Har'El wrote: > On Tue, Sep 21, 2010, Chris Wright wrote about "Re: KVM call minutes for Sept 21": > >> People keep looking for reasons to justify the cost of the effort, dunno >> why "because it's cool" isn't good enough ;) At any rate, that was mainly >> a question of how it might be useful for production kind of environments. >> > I gave in my previous mail a long list of examples what you might do with > nested virtualization, and many of them could be called "production kind of > enviroments". > I don't think arguing about use cases is very productive. The concern is that nested VMX is invasive and presents a long term maintenance burden. There are two ways to mitigate this burden. The first is to work extra hard to make things as common as humanly possible between nested VMX and nested SVM. The second is to make sure that we have an aggressive set of test cases. I think the later is perhaps the most important point of all. Regards. Anthony Liguori