similar to: Paravirtualization on VMware's Platform [VMI].

Hi Peter, Removal of VMI(VMware's para-virtualization technique) is scheduled for 2.6.37, I was wondering what would be the right time frame for submitting a patch which does that. Does the x86-tip tree have any next branch where we can park this patch ? Below is the patch for your reference which just removes VMI specific bits, applies on top of x86-tip. There is also an opportunity to

Hi Peter, Removal of VMI(VMware's para-virtualization technique) is scheduled for 2.6.37, I was wondering what would be the right time frame for submitting a patch which does that. Does the x86-tip tree have any next branch where we can park this patch ? Below is the patch for your reference which just removes VMI specific bits, applies on top of x86-tip. There is also an opportunity to

Hi all, Here are some benchmarks that I''ve done using Xen. However, before I get started, let me explain some of configuration details... Xen Version SPECjbb WebBench Linux Distribution Debian 3.1 HT disabled Linux Kernel 2.6.12.2 Host Patch CK3s Here are the initial benchmarks SPECJBB WebBench 1 Thread 1 Client 2 Clients 4 Clients 8 Clients BOPS TPS TPS TPS TPS Host

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 +++

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

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

I'm using VMWare Server 2 RC1 to on top of CentOS 5.2 x86_64 running a CentOS 5.2 i386 guest. I have enabled VMI in VMware, so I guess it won't let me install if VMI wasn't available in the kernel? How do I know whether VMI is supported/enabled and what performance benefits can I expect from it? I'm still not getting full hard drive speeds (only getting about 1/3 when using

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

> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 10:33 AM, Suresh Siddha > <suresh.b.siddha at intel.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 10:19:35PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote: > >> > >> fix for pv. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel at gmail.com> > >> > >> --- > >> arch/x86/kernel/paravirt.c | 5 ---- > >>

> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 10:33 AM, Suresh Siddha > <suresh.b.siddha at intel.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 10:19:35PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote: > >> > >> fix for pv. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel at gmail.com> > >> > >> --- > >> arch/x86/kernel/paravirt.c | 5 ---- > >>

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