From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LVOLX-00082I-Me for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2009 05:54:07 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LVOLW-00081J-SE for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2009 05:54:07 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=55252 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LVOLW-00081E-OJ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2009 05:54:06 -0500 Received: from pelvoux.gotadsl.co.uk ([81.6.248.91]:38012) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LVOLW-0005QV-8a for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2009 05:54:06 -0500 Received: from fozzy by ecrins.fosdick.home.net with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LVOM1-0006Ha-Qz for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2009 10:54:37 +0000 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: Cutting a new QEMU release From: Steve Fosdick In-Reply-To: <498B380E.5090603@codemonkey.ws> References: <1233825194.6637.4.camel@ecrins.fosdick.home.net> <498AF6FC.90803@codemonkey.ws> <200902050936.49909.rickv@hobi.com> <200902051627.21972.paul@codesourcery.com> <498B380E.5090603@codemonkey.ws> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 10:54:36 +0000 Message-Id: <1233917676.6637.39.camel@ecrins.fosdick.home.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Thu, 2009-02-05 at 13:03 -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote: > Personally, I'd prefer that it lived outside of the QEMU tree. It is > never going to go into upstream Linux and it's not something that I > think is worth supporting. Does anyone here have any stats on what people are using QEMU for? I ask this because I suspect a significant use case is running an x86 guest on an x86 host and, at the moment, the only way to get reasonable performance on a non virtualisation-enhanced CPU seems to be to use kqmeu. Now, I can understand the developers of kvm only supporting the virtualisation-enhanced CPUs because, looking to the future they will be common. I suspect at the moment though there are plenty of people running VMs on older hardware. I can also see that if it would take major refactoring to get kqemu into the main kernal tree it is probably not worth the efforts as, by the time that work is complete the ratio virtualisation-enhanced CPUs to older, non virtualisation-enhanced CPUs would be higher. To my mind mind, what would be good right now is if someone (or some people) understands kqemu well enough that, if kernel changes break it, it can be fixed, not forever but until more people have virtualisation-enhanced CPUs and can use KVM instead. Regards, Steve.