similar to: CentOS 5.2 VMI support

Master definition of VMI interface, including calls, constants, and interface version. Signed-off-by: Zachary Amsden <zach@vmware.com> Index: linux-2.6.16-rc5/include/asm-i386/mach-vmi/paravirtualInterface.h =================================================================== --- linux-2.6.16-rc5.orig/include/asm-i386/mach-vmi/paravirtualInterface.h 2006-03-08 10:08:45.000000000 -0800 +++

Master definition of VMI interface, including calls, constants, and interface version. Signed-off-by: Zachary Amsden <zach@vmware.com> Index: linux-2.6.16-rc5/include/asm-i386/mach-vmi/paravirtualInterface.h =================================================================== --- linux-2.6.16-rc5.orig/include/asm-i386/mach-vmi/paravirtualInterface.h 2006-03-08 10:08:45.000000000 -0800 +++

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Are there any repositories for CentOS 5.5 that keep the latest MySQL versions? After enabling everything I can think off (CentOS, rpmforge, epel), I'm still only seeing 5.0.77-4.el5_5.4. 5.5 came out yesterday and 5.1 has been around for a while. I don't want to manually install from the mysql site for obvious reasons. Russ -----BEGIN PGP

The VMI ROM detection and code patching mechanism is illustrated in setup.c. There ROM is a binary block published by the hypervisor, and and there are certainly implications of this. ROMs certainly have a history of being proprietary, very differently licensed pieces of software, and mostly under non-free licenses. Before jumping to the conclusion that this is a bad thing, let us consider more

The VMI ROM detection and code patching mechanism is illustrated in setup.c. There ROM is a binary block published by the hypervisor, and and there are certainly implications of this. ROMs certainly have a history of being proprietary, very differently licensed pieces of software, and mostly under non-free licenses. Before jumping to the conclusion that this is a bad thing, let us consider more

Hi, We ran a few experiments to compare performance of VMware's paravirtualization technique (VMI) and hardware MMU technologies (HWMMU) on VMware's hypervisor. To give some background, VMI is VMware's paravirtualization specification which tries to optimize CPU and MMU operations of the guest operating system. For more information take a look at this

Hi, We ran a few experiments to compare performance of VMware's paravirtualization technique (VMI) and hardware MMU technologies (HWMMU) on VMware's hypervisor. To give some background, VMI is VMware's paravirtualization specification which tries to optimize CPU and MMU operations of the guest operating system. For more information take a look at this

Add a /proc node for the VMI sub-arch, which gives information on the VMI ROM detected using /proc/vmi/info and a list of kernel annotations in /proc/vmi/annotations. The timing information is VMware specific, and should probably be put into a separate /proc node (and a separate patch for our internal use). Signed-off-by: Zachary Amsden <zach@vmware.com> Index:

Add a /proc node for the VMI sub-arch, which gives information on the VMI ROM detected using /proc/vmi/info and a list of kernel annotations in /proc/vmi/annotations. The timing information is VMware specific, and should probably be put into a separate /proc node (and a separate patch for our internal use). Signed-off-by: Zachary Amsden <zach@vmware.com> Index:

Fix reboot to work with the VMI. We must support fallback to the standard BIOS reboot mechanism. Turns out that this is required by kexec, and a good idea for native hardware. We simply insert the NOP VMI reboot hook before calling the BIOS reboot. While here, fix SMP reboot issues as well. The problem is the halt() macro in VMI has been defined to be equivalent to safe_halt(), which enables

Fix reboot to work with the VMI. We must support fallback to the standard BIOS reboot mechanism. Turns out that this is required by kexec, and a good idea for native hardware. We simply insert the NOP VMI reboot hook before calling the BIOS reboot. While here, fix SMP reboot issues as well. The problem is the halt() macro in VMI has been defined to be equivalent to safe_halt(), which enables

So there is a logic error that would prevent us from ever using NOP = relocations, thus stopping any unnecessary callouts into a VMI ROM. It = doesn't affect us so much, but could conceivably affect open source = implementations of a VMI ROM in the future. It is not absolutely = critical, but it would be extremely nice to get it fixed in 2.6.21 so = there are no broken older kernels

So there is a logic error that would prevent us from ever using NOP = relocations, thus stopping any unnecessary callouts into a VMI ROM. It = doesn't affect us so much, but could conceivably affect open source = implementations of a VMI ROM in the future. It is not absolutely = critical, but it would be extremely nice to get it fixed in 2.6.21 so = there are no broken older kernels

VMI is broken under COMPAT_VDSO, as Xen and other non hardware assisted hypervisors will be. I have been working on a fix for this which works for older glibcs that panic when the new relocatable VDSO is used. However, I believe at this time that the fix is going to be too radical to consider at this stage in the release of 2.6.21. We don't expect this config option to be turned on by

VMI is broken under COMPAT_VDSO, as Xen and other non hardware assisted hypervisors will be. I have been working on a fix for this which works for older glibcs that panic when the new relocatable VDSO is used. However, I believe at this time that the fix is going to be too radical to consider at this stage in the release of 2.6.21. We don't expect this config option to be turned on by

SMP bootstrapping support. Just as in the physical platform model, the BSP is responsible for initializing the AP state prior to execution. The dependence on lots of processor state information is a design choice of our implementation. Conceivably, this could be a hypercall that awakens the same start of day state on APs as on the BSP. It is likely the AP startup and the start-of-day model will

SMP bootstrapping support. Just as in the physical platform model, the BSP is responsible for initializing the AP state prior to execution. The dependence on lots of processor state information is a design choice of our implementation. Conceivably, this could be a hypercall that awakens the same start of day state on APs as on the BSP. It is likely the AP startup and the start-of-day model will

Move I/O instruction building to the sub-arch layer. Some very crafty but esoteric macros are used here to get optimized native instructions for port I/O in Linux be writing raw instruction strings. Adding a wrapper layer here is fairly easy, and makes the full range of I/O instructions available to the VMI interface. Also, slowing down I/O is not a useful operation in a VM, so there is a VMI

Move I/O instruction building to the sub-arch layer. Some very crafty but esoteric macros are used here to get optimized native instructions for port I/O in Linux be writing raw instruction strings. Adding a wrapper layer here is fairly easy, and makes the full range of I/O instructions available to the VMI interface. Also, slowing down I/O is not a useful operation in a VM, so there is a VMI

So, as 2.6.21-rc1 is approaching, what is the upstream merge status for the paravirt-ops backends? I believe VMI is in Andi's tree, plus or minus some bugfixes that are still being whittled in, but Andi, do you think the VMI code is in good shape for merging? It would be nice for everyone to clarify their upstream plans - is the goal still to get Xen and lguest merged for the next kernel