Re: [Xen-users] pv_ops dom0 kernel and VT cpu extensions

[Gerry Reno <greno@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Chris wrote:
> Following that logic we will need to start working on a vmmm (virtual 
> machine monitor monitor) to handle multiple vmm's :)
> Skickat frÃn min iPhone
>
> Dec 28, 2009 kl. 11:01 PM skrev Gerry Reno <greno@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> > Fajar A. Nugraha wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 8:11 AM, Gerry Reno <greno@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > > My question is how can I
> > > > get pv_ops dom0 kernel or Xen 3.4.1 to pass the cpu VT flags 
> > > > through so that
> > > > existing KVM guests will run with cpu VT acceleration at full speed?
> > > AFAIK you can't. The same reason why you can't get Virtualbox and KVM
> > > to use VT together.
> > > Only one virtualization technology can use VT at the same time.
> > As physical boxes gain more and more processing capability it makes 
> > no sense to restrict a physical machine to only a single hypervisor.
> > Libvirt will support nested VM's that pass through the VT 
> > capabilities to the next level.  So it makes sense that Xen should be 
> > able to do the same thing and pass through the cpu VT capabilities to 
> > other hypervisors.  Is there some law of the universe that prevents 
> > this?
> > -Gerry
Chris, please.... don't top post on the list!    What you say about 
monitor monitor is not quite what is needed but somewhat along those lines.
We need some type of small hypervisor-monitor / scheduler-kernel that 
would exist in Ring 0 and mediate between hypervisors.  Then all 
hypervisors/kernels could be in Ring 1.  Domains in Ring 2.  All apps in 
Ring 3.   Something like this.
-Gerry



_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users