Currently, the term nestedhvm is vastly used. I am curious: will we support nestedPVM in future? If not, I guess nestedvm, or nvm is better. Just 2 cents. thx, eddie _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
At 10:51 +0100 on 13 Sep (1284375082), Dong, Eddie wrote:> Currently, the term nestedhvm is vastly used. I am curious: will we > support nestedPVM in future? If not, I guess nestedvm, or nvm is > better. Just 2 cents.We already do support nesting PV in HVM. I doubt we''ll ever support PV-in-PV. I like "nested HVM"; it describes exactly what the feature does. Tim.> thx, eddie > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel-- Tim Deegan <Tim.Deegan@citrix.com> Principal Software Engineer, XenServer Engineering Citrix Systems UK Ltd. (Company #02937203, SL9 0BG) _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Tim Deegan wrote:> At 10:51 +0100 on 13 Sep (1284375082), Dong, Eddie wrote: >> Currently, the term nestedhvm is vastly used. I am curious: will we >> support nestedPVM in future? If not, I guess nestedvm, or nvm is >> better. Just 2 cents. > > We already do support nesting PV in HVM. I doubt we''ll ever support > PV-in-PV.I believe so.> > I like "nested HVM"; it describes exactly what the feature does. >Mmm, I may be bias since to me VM is same with HVM. But PVM is special. HVM is invented to distinguish with PVM only, but in nested virtualization, if we don''t have PVM, then the existing of HVM is not that high priority. But I can follow if that is the wish. But at least it should be nested_vcpu rather than nested HVM, since we are talking about per VCPU stuff. Of course nestedhvm_vcpu is fine too though it is much longer. Or just use nvcpu, nhvm? Thx, Eddie _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
On Tuesday 14 September 2010 08:55:43 Dong, Eddie wrote:> Tim Deegan wrote: > > At 10:51 +0100 on 13 Sep (1284375082), Dong, Eddie wrote: > >> Currently, the term nestedhvm is vastly used. I am curious: will we > >> support nestedPVM in future? If not, I guess nestedvm, or nvm is > >> better. Just 2 cents. > > > > We already do support nesting PV in HVM. I doubt we''ll ever support > > PV-in-PV. > > I believe so. > > > I like "nested HVM"; it describes exactly what the feature does. > > Mmm, I may be bias since to me VM is same with HVM. But PVM is special. HVM > is invented to distinguish with PVM only, but in nested virtualization, if > we don''t have PVM, then the existing of HVM is not that high priority. But > I can follow if that is the wish. > > But at least it should be nested_vcpu rather than nested HVM, since we are > talking about per VCPU stuff. Of course nestedhvm_vcpu is fine too though > it is much longer. > > Or just use nvcpu, nhvm?If you were using a clear namespace scheme, you wouldn''t need to hang up yourself on nuances how to call things. Christoph -- ---to satisfy European Law for business letters: Advanced Micro Devices GmbH Einsteinring 24, 85609 Dornach b. Muenchen Geschaeftsfuehrer: Alberto Bozzo, Andrew Bowd Sitz: Dornach, Gemeinde Aschheim, Landkreis Muenchen Registergericht Muenchen, HRB Nr. 43632 _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
At 07:55 +0100 on 14 Sep (1284450943), Dong, Eddie wrote:> > I like "nested HVM"; it describes exactly what the feature does. > > > Mmm, I may be bias since to me VM is same with HVM.Me too, mostly. :) But historically Xen has been the other way around. VMs are VMs but some of them need hardware support, and it''s that hardware support that''s getting nested. Everything else in the hvm code is labelled as such, so we should call this feature nested hvm too. Cheers, Tim. -- Tim Deegan <Tim.Deegan@citrix.com> Principal Software Engineer, XenServer Engineering Citrix Systems UK Ltd. (Company #02937203, SL9 0BG) _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel