[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [Xen-devel] Re: [RFC, PATCH 0/24] VMI i386 Linux virtualization interface proposal
Hi Zach,A number of the files you posted (including the vmi_spec.txt) have the phrase 'All rights reserved'. That seems incompatible with the GPL. In particular, it makes it unclear about how one can use the actual vmi spec. In your next round of patches, could you clarify the actual licensing of the files? Regards, Anthony Liguori Zachary Amsden wrote: In OLS 2005, we described the work that we have been doing in VMware with respect a common interface for paravirtualization of Linux. We shared the general vision in Rik's virtualization BoF. This note is an update on our further work on the Virtual Machine Interface, VMI. The patches provided have been tested on 2.6.16-rc6. We are currently recollecting performance information for the new -rc6 kernel, but expect our numbers to match previous results, which showed no impact whatsoever on macro benchmarks, and nearly neglible impact on microbenchmarks. Unlike the full-virtualization techniques used in the traditional VMware products, paravirtualization is a technique where the operating system is modified to enlighten the hypervisor with timely knowledge about the operating system's activities. Since the hypervisor now depends on the kernel to tell it about common idioms etc, it does not need to write protect OS objects such as page and descriptor tables as a solution based on full-virtualization needs. This has two important effects (a) it shortens the critical path, since faulting is expensive on modern processors (b) by eliminating complex heuristics the hypervisor is simplified. While the former delivers performance, the latter is quiteimportant too.Not surprisingly, paravirtualization's strength, ie that it encourages tighter communication between the kernel and the hypervisor, is also its weakness. Unless the changes to the operating system are moderated, you can very quickly find yourself with a kernel that (a) looks and feels like a brand new kernel or (b) cannot run on native machines or on newer versions of the hypervisor without a full recompile. The former can impede innovation in the Linux kernel, and the latter can be a problemfor software vendors.VMware proposes VMI as a paravirtualization interface for Linux thatsolves these problems. - A VMI'fied Linux kernel runs unmodified on native hardware, and onmany hypervisors, while simultaneously delivering on the performancepromise of paravirtualization. - VMI has a rich and low level interface, which allows the kernel tocope with future hardware evolution by querying for hardware capability. It is our expectation that a single kernel will run unmodified on both today's processors with limited hardware virtualization support and also keep up with any evolution on theprocessor front - VMI Linux is a fairly clean interface, with distinct name spacesfor objects from the kernel and the hypervisor. Nowhere do we mingle names from the hypervisor with that of the kernel. This separation allows innovation in the kernel to proceed at the same speed as always. For most kernel developers, a VMI kernel looks and feels likea regular Linux kernel. - VMI Linux still supports "native" hypervisor device drivers, forexample a hypervisor vendor's own private network or block device drivers which are free to use any interface desired to communicate with the hypervisor. At present, we are sharing a working implementation of the VMI for 2.6.16-rc6 version of Linux. We have verified that VMI Linux does indeed run well on native machines (both P4 and Opterons), and on VMware style hypervisors. VMI Linux has negligible overheads on native machines, so much so, that we are confident that VMI Linux can, in the long run, be the default Linux for i386. We believe that this interface is both cleaner and more powerful than other proposals that have been made towards virtualization of Linux, and can easily be adapted to work with other hypervisors. This is by no means finished work. A few of the areas that need more attention and exploration are (a) 64bit support is still lacking, but we feel a port of VMI to the 64 bit Linux can be done without too much trouble (b) the Xen compatibility layer needs some work to bring it up to the Xen 3.0 interfaces. Work is underway on this already, andno major issues are expected at this time.Two final notes. This is not an attempt to force a proprietary interface into the Linux kernel. This is an attempt to find a common interface that can be used by many hypervisors by isolating hypervisor specific idioms into a neutral layer. This new layer is just what is claims to be - a virtual machine interface, which allows hypervisor dependent code to be abstracted in a way that benefits both Linux and hypervisor development. This is also not an attempt to define an exact and final specification of how virtualization should be done in Linux. This is very much a work in progress, and it is understood that the interfaces proposed here willchange in time to accommodate the needs of all interested parties. We hope to find a common solution that can eventually become part of theLinux kernel and serve as a model for other operating systems as well. We appreciate your feedback on this design and the patches to Linux, and welcome working with anyone who is interested in making virtualization in Linux a friendly environment to innovate in. If you find the ideas here interesting, please volunteer to help improve them.------------------------------------------------------------------------_______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |