* Re: Roadmap for KVM support on Tile? [not found] <4CFCD363.7060803@siemens.com> @ 2010-12-06 15:59 ` Chris Metcalf 2010-12-06 16:13 ` Jan Kiszka 0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread From: Chris Metcalf @ 2010-12-06 15:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jan Kiszka; +Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List On 12/6/2010 7:13 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote: > Hi Chris, > > as I'm already running around, telling people that Tile might be the > next arch to gain KVM support, I wanted to back this derived [1] > information with some more details. Can you share some of your plans > regarding this, either officially (LKML, kvm-devel) or yet privately? > - What will be the level of support in the first version and long-term > (CPU virtualization + I/O emulation, also I/O virtualization/ > pass-though)? > - What use cases do you target, and why do you plan to use KVM for > them? > - What use cases may not fit a KVM-based approach? > > The background of this questionnaire is not (yet) a concrete project > based on a Tile processor and KVM. Right now I'm primarily promoting KVM > for use cases beyond classic x86 server scenarios, both in-house as well > as in the community. > > TiA! > > Best regards, > Jan Kiszka > > [1] http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1048568 We already have a hypervisor that is used for Tile, which allows us to do client isolation and spatial multiplexing (i.e. splitting the cores among different supervisors), and smooths over some of the more nitty-gritty hardware issues to present an easier API to the client supervisor, e.g. Linux. The supervisor is paravirtualized, i.e. aware of the hypervisor API for page-table management and I/O access. But moving forward there is some appeal to using a standard virtualization technology, and we picked KVM as the target that seemed best for us to support. Some of the things this will facilitate for us include dynamic reconfiguration of supervisor domains, sharing I/O devices between supervisors, providing virtual devices to supervisors, virtual machine migration/snapshots, etc. And, we'd like to support a standard management interface such as the KVM interface, so our customers don't have to learn how to manage the Tilera-specific hypervisor software. None of this is committed to any particular release schedule yet, but this is the direction we are currently planning to head. -- Chris Metcalf, Tilera Corp. http://www.tilera.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: Roadmap for KVM support on Tile? 2010-12-06 15:59 ` Roadmap for KVM support on Tile? Chris Metcalf @ 2010-12-06 16:13 ` Jan Kiszka 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread From: Jan Kiszka @ 2010-12-06 16:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Chris Metcalf; +Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List, kvm Am 06.12.2010 16:59, Chris Metcalf wrote: > On 12/6/2010 7:13 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote: >> Hi Chris, >> >> as I'm already running around, telling people that Tile might be the >> next arch to gain KVM support, I wanted to back this derived [1] >> information with some more details. Can you share some of your plans >> regarding this, either officially (LKML, kvm-devel) or yet privately? >> - What will be the level of support in the first version and long-term >> (CPU virtualization + I/O emulation, also I/O virtualization/ >> pass-though)? >> - What use cases do you target, and why do you plan to use KVM for >> them? >> - What use cases may not fit a KVM-based approach? >> >> The background of this questionnaire is not (yet) a concrete project >> based on a Tile processor and KVM. Right now I'm primarily promoting KVM >> for use cases beyond classic x86 server scenarios, both in-house as well >> as in the community. >> >> TiA! >> >> Best regards, >> Jan Kiszka >> >> [1] http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1048568 > > We already have a hypervisor that is used for Tile, which allows us to do > client isolation and spatial multiplexing (i.e. splitting the cores among > different supervisors), and smooths over some of the more nitty-gritty > hardware issues to present an easier API to the client supervisor, e.g. > Linux. The supervisor is paravirtualized, i.e. aware of the hypervisor API > for page-table management and I/O access. > > But moving forward there is some appeal to using a standard virtualization > technology, and we picked KVM as the target that seemed best for us to > support. Some of the things this will facilitate for us include dynamic > reconfiguration of supervisor domains, sharing I/O devices between > supervisors, providing virtual devices to supervisors, virtual machine > migration/snapshots, etc. And, we'd like to support a standard management > interface such as the KVM interface, so our customers don't have to learn > how to manage the Tilera-specific hypervisor software. > > None of this is committed to any particular release schedule yet, but this > is the direction we are currently planning to head. > Thanks for the information! Sound thrilling, looking forward seeing this materializing. Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT T DE IT 1 Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2010-12-06 16:13 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <4CFCD363.7060803@siemens.com>
2010-12-06 15:59 ` Roadmap for KVM support on Tile? Chris Metcalf
2010-12-06 16:13 ` Jan Kiszka
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox