From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rusty Russell Subject: Re: Paravirtualization on VMware's Platform [VMI]. Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 16:52:32 +0930 Message-ID: <200909221652.35446.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> References: <1253233028.19731.63.camel@ank32.eng.vmware.com> <20090920095239.456ad6f2@infradead.org> <4AB5EF25.9070502@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4AB5EF25.9070502@redhat.com> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Avi Kivity Cc: Arjan van de Ven , Ingo Molnar , Alok Kataria , Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" , the arch/x86 maintainers , LKML , Jeremy Fitzhardinge , Chris Wright , "virtualization@lists.osdl.org" , Greg KH , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 06:30:21 pm Avi Kivity wrote: > On 09/20/2009 10:52 AM, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 09:42:47 +0200 > > Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > >> If we were able to rip out all (or most) of paravirt from arch/x86 it > >> would be tempting for other technical reasons - but the patch above > >> is well localized. > >> > > interesting question is if this would allow us to remove a few of the > > paravirt hooks.... > > > > kvm will be removing the pvmmu support soon; and Xen is talking about > running paravirtualized guests in a vmx/svm container where they don't > need most of the hooks. When they're all gone, even I don't think lguest is sufficient excuse to keep CONFIG_PARAVIRT. Oh well. But that will probably be a while. Cheers, Rusty.