From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Subject: Re: Paravirtualization on VMware's Platform [VMI]. Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 08:49:16 -0700 Message-ID: <4AB64EFC.10707@goop.org> References: <1253233028.19731.63.camel@ank32.eng.vmware.com> <20090919224430.GB9567@kroah.com> <1253419185.3253.21.camel@ank32.eng.vmware.com> <20090920074247.GA5733@elte.hu> <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> 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 , Chris Wright , Rusty Russell , "virtualization@lists.osdl.org" , Greg KH , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org On 09/20/09 02:00, 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. > We have no plans to drop support for non-vmx/svm capable processors, let alone require ept/npt. J