From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56705) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c4CH9-00051H-Pw for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 08 Nov 2016 14:41:45 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c4CH8-0004pV-Tp for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 08 Nov 2016 14:41:43 -0500 Received: from mail-it0-x235.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::235]:37405) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c4CH8-0004p1-MU for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 08 Nov 2016 14:41:42 -0500 Received: by mail-it0-x235.google.com with SMTP id u205so229151057itc.0 for ; Tue, 08 Nov 2016 11:41:42 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: vpalatin@google.com In-Reply-To: <5a5399c5-a8bb-bfcb-8bc5-8aaad9749aa0@redhat.com> References: <5a5399c5-a8bb-bfcb-8bc5-8aaad9749aa0@redhat.com> From: Vincent Palatin Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 20:41:21 +0100 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/3] [RFC] Add HAX support List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: qemu-devel On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 6:43 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > > On 08/11/2016 16:39, Vincent Palatin wrote: > > I took a stab at trying to rebase/upstream the support for Intel HAXM. > > (Hardware Accelerated Execution Manager). > > Intel HAX is kernel-based hardware acceleration module for Windows and MacOSX. > > > > I have based my work on the last version of the source code I found: > > the emu-2.2-release branch in the external/qemu-android repository as used by > > the Android emulator. > > In patch 2/3, I have forward-ported the core HAX code mostly unmodified from > > there, I just did some minor touch up to make it build and run properly. > > So it might contain some outdated constructs and probably requires more > > attention (thus the 'RFC' for this patchset). > > Does HAXM support the "unrestricted guest" feature in Westmere and more > recent processors? Yes it does, as mentioned in the last paragraph of my message, I have actually done a fair chunk of my testing in UG mode. > > If so, I think we should only support those > processors and slash all the part related to HAX_EMULATE_STATE_INITIAL > and HAX_EMULATE_STATE_REAL. This would probably let us make patch 3 > much less intrusive. Sure the whole patchset would be lighter, not sure which proportion of user have VT machines without UG support though. > > That said, patch 3's cpu-exec.c surgery is much nicer on the surface > than if you look in depth, :) and since you don't look in depth if you > steer clear of target-i386/hax*, I think it's okay to start with your > patches and clean up progressively. Others may disagree... Also, we're > now in soft freeze so the patches wouldn't be merged anyway for a few weeks. > > Paolo