From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MDXtj-0004wC-7J for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 08 Jun 2009 01:59:55 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MDXtc-0004vt-Hj for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 08 Jun 2009 01:59:53 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=56793 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MDXtc-0004vp-D0 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 08 Jun 2009 01:59:48 -0400 Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:38978) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MDXtb-0007Ew-Qj for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 08 Jun 2009 01:59:48 -0400 Message-ID: <4A2CA8C2.2080004@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 08:59:30 +0300 From: Avi Kivity MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] POLL: Why do you use kqemu? References: <4A26F1E3.1040509@codemonkey.ws> <4A27FC69.9070501@mayc.ru> <20090605201415.GA22847@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <20090608001312.GE15426@shareable.org> In-Reply-To: <20090608001312.GE15426@shareable.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Jamie Lokier Cc: Lennart Sorensen , "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" , Anton D Kachalov Jamie Lokier wrote: > Johannes Schindelin wrote: > >>> Yeah I don't either. I actually thought kvm had replaced it effectively. >>> >> You might have realized from the available answers that not everybody is >> lucky enough to be able to afford 2 week old hardware, and therefore not >> everybody is able to use kvm. >> > > Plus kvm's not suitable for some guests. I'm thinking old Windows > guests with 16-bit kernel code here. > kvm on amd will run these perfectly. > It has come up before that kvm will eventually support 16-bit code > better, although I got the impression that it would never support full > 16-bit virtualisation accurately, so e.g. Windows 95 will not run on > it, nor some other partially 16-bit OSes. Possibly not even very old > versions of Linux, I'm not sure. > > Don't ask me _why_ I want to run them. :-) > > Just a data point that it's not just about the host hardware, and as > far as I know kqemu can accelerate them. > It falls back to qemu for 16-bit code. -- Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic.