> We intend to add support for x86 h/w virtualization extensions > as information about them becomes available.What information is needed beyond the Pacifica documentation already provided by AMD and the Vanderpool docs provided by Intel? Is there any possibility of setting up a mailing list directed specifically at xen 3.0 hardware supported virtualization? Thanks, Dave Feustel -- Tired of having to defend against Malware? You know: trojans, viruses, SPYWARE, ADWARE, KEYLOGGERS, rootkits, worms and popups. Then Switch to OpenBSD with a KDE desktop!!! _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
> > We intend to add support for x86 h/w virtualization extensions > > as information about them becomes available. > > What information is needed beyond the Pacifica documentation already > provided by AMD and the Vanderpool docs provided by Intel?In principle, nothing, but the code and manpower coming from those guys is a *huge* help. The other information - stuff like, when hardware is being released, how work is progressing, which optional features of the specs will be implemented - is rather hush for business reasons.> Is there any possibility of setting up a mailing list directed specifically > at xen 3.0 hardware supported virtualization?I guess there''s an argument for this - h/w virtualisation posts give a substantial amount of the traffic on xen-devel these days. Would it really be much of an advantage? Cheers, Mark _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Dave Feustel wrote:>>We intend to add support for x86 h/w virtualization extensions >>as information about them becomes available. >> >> > >What information is needed beyond the Pacifica documentation already >provided by AMD and the Vanderpool docs provided by Intel? > >I don''t know where you''re quoting from, but both specs are out publicly. As Mark mentions, there''s quite a bit of work to go from specs to implementation though. Both VT and Pacifica are pretty similiar in the basic idea that they allow the processor to be put in a mode where 30 or so events that normally don''t trap actually do trap. Just having the processor trap though doesn''t get you virtualization :-) Each of those events has to be handled, and often emulated. Throw in shadow paging and IO emulation and it''s all rather complicated. Plus, there''s not much that can be done without having the hardware at this point.>Is there any possibility of setting up a mailing list directed specifically at >xen 3.0 hardware supported virtualization? > >There are an awful lot of Xen mailing lists at this point. What would be *really* useful is having some content on the wiki that went into more depth about VT/Pacifica. Regards, Anthony Liguori>Thanks, >Dave Feustel > > > >_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
On Tuesday 25 October 2005 09:53, Anthony Liguori wrote:> Dave Feustel wrote: > > >>We intend to add support for x86 h/w virtualization extensions > >>as information about them becomes available. > >> > >> > > > >What information is needed beyond the Pacifica documentation already > >provided by AMD and the Vanderpool docs provided by Intel? > > > > > I don''t know where you''re quoting from, but both specs are out publicly.I know. I have both. What I was asking is whether the info in those documents is sufficient to make Xen work with the hardware of both chips, or is additional info needed (and still not available)?> As Mark mentions, there''s quite a bit of work to go from specs to > implementation though. > > Both VT and Pacifica are pretty similiar in the basic idea that they > allow the processor to be put in a mode where 30 or so events that > normally don''t trap actually do trap.Pacifica has a new paging mode (paged real mode) made possible by the Opteron on-chip memory controller. This feature is not present in VT.> Just having the processor trap though doesn''t get you virtualization > :-) Each of those events has to be handled, and often emulated. Throw > in shadow paging and IO emulation and it''s all rather complicated. > > Plus, there''s not much that can be done without having the hardware at > this point. > > >Is there any possibility of setting up a mailing list directed specifically at > >xen 3.0 hardware supported virtualization? > > > > > There are an awful lot of Xen mailing lists at this point. What would > be *really* useful is having some content on the wiki that went into > more depth about VT/Pacifica. > > Regards, > > Anthony Liguori > > >Thanks, > >Dave Feustel > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel >-- Tired of having to defend against Malware? You know: trojans, viruses, SPYWARE, ADWARE, KEYLOGGERS, rootkits, worms and popups. Then Switch to OpenBSD with a KDE desktop!!! _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
> I know. I have both. What I was asking is whether the info in those > documents is sufficient to make Xen work with the hardware of both chips, > or is additional info needed (and still not available)?Well, apart from the code from Intel we also have had VT SDVs in Cambridge for quite some time and so are able to test stuff for ourselves. I''m not sure what the status is for AMD: but there''s always SimNow for development / testing. So in both cases there''s some sort of reference implementation to work with.> Pacifica has a new paging mode (paged real mode) made possible by the > Opteron on-chip memory controller. This feature is not present in VT.My initial impression of Pacifica was "much like VT, but with more goodies" ;-) Cheers, Mark> > Just having the processor trap though doesn''t get you virtualization > > > > :-) Each of those events has to be handled, and often emulated. Throw > > > > in shadow paging and IO emulation and it''s all rather complicated. > > > > Plus, there''s not much that can be done without having the hardware at > > this point. > > > > >Is there any possibility of setting up a mailing list directed > > > specifically at xen 3.0 hardware supported virtualization? > > > > There are an awful lot of Xen mailing lists at this point. What would > > be *really* useful is having some content on the wiki that went into > > more depth about VT/Pacifica. > > > > Regards, > > > > Anthony Liguori > > > > >Thanks, > > >Dave Feustel > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Xen-devel mailing list > > Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com > > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Dave Feustel wrote:>On Tuesday 25 October 2005 09:53, Anthony Liguori wrote: > > >>Dave Feustel wrote: >> >> >> >>>>We intend to add support for x86 h/w virtualization extensions >>>>as information about them becomes available. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>What information is needed beyond the Pacifica documentation already >>>provided by AMD and the Vanderpool docs provided by Intel? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>I don''t know where you''re quoting from, but both specs are out publicly. >> >> > >I know. I have both. What I was asking is whether the info in those documents >is sufficient to make Xen work with the hardware of both chips, or is additional >info needed (and still not available)? >Sorry, then yes, theoritically, all you should need are those specs.>>Both VT and Pacifica are pretty similiar in the basic idea that they >>allow the processor to be put in a mode where 30 or so events that >>normally don''t trap actually do trap. >> >> > >Pacifica has a new paging mode (paged real mode) made possible by the >Opteron on-chip memory controller. This feature is not present in VT. > >Yes, there are considerable differences. Pacifica has paged real mode whereas VT requires vm86 mode to be used for real mode emulation. Pacifica also has (optional) support for hardware shadow page tables, TLB tagging, and DMA memory protection. They also have different models for dealing with the VMCS/VMCB. I would categorize this stuff mostly as optimizations though since none of it''s required to meet the Popek/Goldberg requirements. Just enough differences to make things interesting :-) Regards, Anthony Liguori>>Just having the processor trap though doesn''t get you virtualization >>:-) Each of those events has to be handled, and often emulated. Throw >>in shadow paging and IO emulation and it''s all rather complicated. >> >>Plus, there''s not much that can be done without having the hardware at >>this point. >> >> >> >>>Is there any possibility of setting up a mailing list directed specifically at >>>xen 3.0 hardware supported virtualization? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>There are an awful lot of Xen mailing lists at this point. What would >>be *really* useful is having some content on the wiki that went into >>more depth about VT/Pacifica. >> >>Regards, >> >>Anthony Liguori >> >> >> >>>Thanks, >>>Dave Feustel >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>_______________________________________________ >>Xen-devel mailing list >>Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com >>http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel >> >> >> > > >_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel